Cab firm insists MMDA tagged wrong driver

THE TAXI firm Joannian Transport Inc. maintained that one of its drivers was mistakenly accused of hitting a traffic enforcer on the Commonwealth Avenue flyover on March 7.

The company’s lawyers made this assertion in a hearing on Tuesday at the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB).

“We’re one with the complainant (in his intention) to capture the person responsible for his injury, but it’s not our client,” said lawyer Miguel Luis Orosa.

Ronald Perez of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) has accused Joannian driver Ramon Talan of being the cabbie who suddenly drove off and bumped him after Perez and three other traffic enforcers flagged him down for a violation around 6:20 a.m.

An MMDA security video of the incident showed Perez clinging onto the cab’s hood as the vehicle zigzagged. When he lost his grip and landed on the pavement, the cab ran over his left foot.

Perez recalled that the taxi had a female passenger at the time who was “scared and praying” when she saw him holding on precariously to the hood.

But Talan insisted he never passed through Commonwealth in Quezon City that morning. From Marikina, he said, he picked up a passenger whom he brought to Mandaluyong via C-5 Road, Boni Serrano, Edsa and then Shaw Boulevard.

Last week, Joannian liaison officer Lyn Calindas said the company had a unit with the same license plate as that reported by Perez—TXW-775. But she noted that the car operated by the firm was a Nissan Sentra, not a Toyota Vios as shown in the video.

LTFRB member Ariel Inton said that “if it’s a case of kambal-plaka (duplicate plate), we will know,” stressing that Perez and his three colleagues were “100-percent sure” they tagged the right driver.

The board ordered the MMDA to present the Commonwealth video. It also granted the Joannian lawyers’ prayer for the MMDA to get a video taken by its cameras that could show Talan passing through Mandaluyong that morning.

MMDA legal department representative Christopher Paglinawan did not object to the subpoena, which in effect compels it to look for proof that might contradict Perez.