> * ,- 
fJp&qgi ij, , .-'. :iCREb"ii?$'/ 
FOURTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC) 
OF THE PHILIPPINES 
1 
Second Regular Session 
) 
8 E["G a - 9  p 3 :'3 
Introduced by Senator Ramon "Bong" Revilla, Jr. 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
Article 1733 of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as the Civil Code of 
the Philippines, provides that: 
"Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for 
reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in 
the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers 
transported by them, according to all circumstances of each case." 
The said provision explicitly states that a common carrier is required by 
law to observe not only the diligence that a reasonable man will exercise under 
the circumstances of each case, but extraordinary vigilance over the goods they 
are carrying and extraordinary vigilance for the safety of their passengers. The 
responsibility imposed by law on common carriers is a necessary consequence 
of their operation, due to the nature of their business which is imbued with public 
interest. 
In fact, a more stringent obligation is imposed by Republic Act No. 386 on 
common carriers with respect to the carriage of passengers. Article 1755 of the 
same statute provides that: 
"A common carrier is bound to carry passengers safely as far as 
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very 
cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances." 
The Supreme Court of the Philippines, in its earliest decisions until the 
present, has continuously cited the aforementioned provisions and other laws 
relative to the diligence required to be observed by common carriers. These 
decisions defined and construed said laws, and has been used as a basis for 
awarding civil indemnity and damages by reason of the injury caused by the 
negligent operation of common carriers, thereby enriching Philippine 
jurisprudence in the process. 
Unfortunately, only Philippine jurisprudence has been enriched by the 
promulgation of the said decisions for the fact remains that vehicular accidents 
due to the negligent operation of public utility vehicles continue to hound our 
streets, highways and other major thoroughfares. 
One need not look at the statistics. Reports of vehicular accidents 
involving public utility buses, jeepneys, cabs and other vehicles are 
commonplace in radio, television, print media and the cyberspace. While the law 
already provides for remedies to recover indemnity from the erring common 
carrier, the process involved is usually difficult and burdensome for the average 
Filipino. Much worse is the fact that common carriers would oftentimes try to 


elude responsibility by pointing a finger to the drivers of its conveyances, who are 
normally incapacitated to shoulder such financial liability. What follows is court 
litigation which is more cumbersome, leaving the hapless victims andlor their 
families suffering more and becoming victims once again, now due to the deceit 
being employed by the common carriers in trying to delay, or much worse, evade 
responsibility. 
But despite recovery of civil indemnity and damages, the same shall never 
compensate the untimely injury or loss suffered by one who becomes the hapless 
victim of such tragedy, or their family. 
Hence, this bill seeks to supplement existing statutes by mandating drivers 
of public conveyances to undergo training and education, so as to be sufficiently 
informed of their responsibilities and liabilities as the agents of their respective 
employers. Through the said measure, it is intended that said drivers will develop 
and exercise the necessary prudence in safeguarding the safety of the riding 
public, thereby preventing loss or destruction of life and property. 
Furthermore, the responsibility imposed upon common carriers to exercise 
extraordinary diligence in the supervision of their employees is expanded so as to 
ensure that the latter are observing the necessary prudence and precautions 
required by law depending on the circumstances, being the employers and the 
beneficiaries of the proceeds of their respective businesses. 
Conversely, this bill intends to benefit the riding public through driver 
information aimed at safety measures, and the common carriers and their 
respective drivers by preventing vehicle mishaps from taking place, thereby 
preventing injury to others and, consequently, liability from attaching to the 
common carriers and its drivers. 
Passage of this bill is therefore earnestly sought. 
2 


a :  
., , 
,. 
gyt"'", 
.rL $1'. 
. , ~- j ~i c;EcEqy&,,lly 
FOURTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC) 
OF THE PHILIPPINES 
) 
Second Regular Session 
..< 
) 
8 FJEC -9 p?, :33 
d 
S. No. SEN%T56 1 ~
~
~
~
i
W
~
~
J
 
Dl' : __ 4. . 
- 
Introduced by Senator Ramon "Bong" Revilla, Jr. 
AN ACT MANDATING SUFFICIENT INFORMATION OF DRIVERS OF 
PUBLIC UTILITY VEHICLES AS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE 
ISSUANCE AND EXTENSION OF FRANCHISES OF COMMON 
CARRIERS 
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the 
Philippines in Congress assembled: 
SECTION 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Common 
Carriers Act of 2008." 
Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared to be the policy of 
the State to reduce, with the end in view of totally eliminating, death and physical 
injuries, as well as destruction and damage to property, due to accidents caused 
by reason of the reckless driving of public utility vehicles. The State hereby 
mandates that the drivers thereof be sufficiently informed of the laws, rules and 
the risks involved in the operation of common carriers, the same being imbued 
with public interest. 
For purposes of this act, a public utility vehicle shall be understood as one 
that is being owned andlor operated by a common carrier as defined in Article 
1732 of Republic Act No. 386, otherwise known as the Civil Code of the 
Philippines. 
Sec. 3. Driver €ducation. - Every common carrier shall be required to 
subject the drivers of their public utility vehicles to complete a course of 
instruction that provides information on driver and safety matters; existing laws, 
traffic rules and regulations relative to public safety; the effects of consumption of 
alcoholic beverage products and the use of illegal drugs, prescription drugs, and 
non-prescription drugs on the ability of a person to operate a motor vehicle, and 
the hazards and penalties for driving under the influence thereof; and the 
carriage of passengers and goods, the liabilities and penalties for violations 
thereof. 
Thereafter, the drivers of public utility vehicles being employed by 
common carriers shall be required to take a test which covers the subject matters 
provided in the preceeding paragraph which shall include written questions 
concerning the legal and financial consequences resulting from violations of such 
laws, traffic rules and regulations. 
The course of instruction and test as herein provided shall be conducted 
by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board. No person shall 
be allowed to drive a public utility vehicle unless he has successfully completed 
the course of instruction and passed the test provided in this section. 


Sec. 4. Reportorial Requirements. - A report indicating compliance with 
Twice every year for common carriers with valid and existing 
Certificate of Public Convenience; 
Within two (2) months from compliance with the requisite course 
and test provided in the preceeding section for drivers of 
persons, corporations, firms or associations applying after the 
effectivity of this Act: Provided, that the requisite course and test 
provided in this section shall be complied with six (6) months 
from the issuance of the Certificate of Public Convenience; 
Within six (6) months prior to the application for extension of the 
validity of a Certificate of Public Convenience. 
the preceeding section shall be filed with the LTFRB: 
(a) 
(b) 
( 4  
Sec. 5. Non-extension of Varidify of Certificate. - Upon proof that a 
common carrier has failed to comply with the requisite course and test required in 
Section 3 of this Act, the LTFRB, upon complaint or motu propio, shall deny the 
application for the extension of the validity of a Certificate of Public Convenience. 
However, despite compliance with the required course and test, the 
application for the extension of the validity of a Certificate of Public Convenience 
may, upon complaint, and after due process has been observed, likewise be 
denied by the LTFRB for failure to file the necessary reportorial requirements as 
provided in the preceeding section. 
Sec. 6. Costs of lnsfrucfion and Examination. - The costs and other 
expenses for the course and test provided in Section 3 of this Act shall be for the 
account of the persons, corporations, firms or associations owning the Certificate 
of Public Convenience. 
It shall be unlawful for a common carrier to collect any amount or 
contribution from the driver employed as payment for costs to be incurred in 
compliance with this Act. Violation of this section shall result in the suspension of 
the Certificate of Public Convenience for a period of six (6) months for the first 
infraction; suspension of the Certificate of Public Convenience for a period of one 
(1) year for the second infraction; and revocation of the Certificate of Public 
Convenience for the third andlor subsequent infractions: Provided, that multiple 
violations of this section shall be treated as independent infractions regardless if 
the same was filed in one and the same complaint, and involving two or more 
complainants. 
For purposes of this section, the phrase “driver employed” in the 
immediately preceeding paragraph shall be understood as including job 
applicants for driver of the common carrier, contractual drivers and those driving 
the public utility vehicle working under the “boundary system”. 
Sec. 7. Presumption of Negligence. - Failure of the common carrier to 
comply with the course of instruction and test required by Section 3 of this Act 
shall be conclusive as to the negligence of the said common carrier in cases of 
vehicle mishaps. 
However, the failure of the common carrier to file the reportorial 
requirements mandated by Section 4 shall only raise a presumption of 
negligence on the part of the common carrier, which may be rebutted by 
evidence of compliance with Sec. 3 of this Act. 
L 


Sec. 8. Registered Owner Rule. - The presumption of negligence in the 
immediately preceeding section shall attach to the registered owner of a public 
utility vehicle, regardless if said vehicle has been previously sold, leased or 
otherwise conveyed to another who is operating the same under the "Kabit 
System". 
The liability for breach of contract of carriage shall attach to the registered 
owner of a public utility vehicle, who may be entitled to reimbursement from the 
transferee thereof. 
Sec. 9. lmplementing Rules and Regulations. - It shall be the duty of 
the LTFRB of the Department of Transportation and Communication to 
promulgate the necessary implementing rules and regulation for the proper 
implementation of this Act. 
It is likewise the duty of the LTFRB to formulate the syllabus of the course 
provided in Section 3 of this Act, and to conduct the tests in compliance 
therewith. 
Sec. IO. Separability Clause. - If any part, section, or provision of this 
Act shall be held invalid or unconstitutional, the other provisions shall not be 
affected thereby. 
Sec. 11. Repealing Clause. - Any law, presidential decree or issuance, 
executive order, letter of instruction, administrative order, rule or regulation 
contrary to, or inconsistent with, the provisions of this Act is hereby repealed, 
modified or amended accordingly. 
Sec.12. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its 
publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation. 
Approved, 
3