LTFRB: Valisno bus franchise stays void
THE 62 passenger buses of Valisno Express won’t be making a comeback on the streets of Metro Manila anytime soon.
Saying no additional evidence was presented to make its officials change their minds, the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) on Feb. 12 denied a motion filed by the bus company to reverse the cancellation of its franchise last year.
“No new evidence was presented by Valisno to warrant a reversal of our previous order,” LTFRB board member Ariel Inton said Tuesday.
FOUR DIED HERE On Aug. 12, 2015, a Bulacan-bound Valisno passenger bus hit a concrete post that used to serve as the boundary marker between Quezon City and Caloocan City, leaving four people dead. The driver later tested positive for drugs. Inquirer photo
The bus firm’s franchise was canceled in September over its failure to provide safe and adequate service, misrepresentation by use of an illegal trade name and for operating an unregistered vehicle, according to the LTFRB order.
This was after one of its buses, whose registration had expired months before, crashed into the concrete marker at the boundary of Quezon City and Caloocan City on Quirino Highway on Aug. 12, killing four passengers and injuring 18 others. The bus driver, George Pacis, later tested positive for illegal drug use.
In the motion for reconsideration filed by operator Rosalinda Valisno, she said she had exercised extraordinary diligence in selecting employees while Pacis had tested negative for drugs before he was hired.
At the same time, she denied the LTFRB’s observation that the bus company had tried to avoid liability in a previous labor dispute by operating under a different trade name, Gaseco.
Valisno also reasoned out that the unregistered vehicle involved in the accident was not supposed to ply the route as ordered by management but a dispatcher had allowed its departure.
“The fact that the dispatcher of Valisno Express allowed the subject unit to [leave] the garage reveals that the respondent lacks control and supervision [over] her employees,” the LTFRB said.
Even if the labor dispute was settled, “the use of an illegal trade name without the prior approval of the board is violative of the terms and conditions of the [franchise] to prevent misrepresentation,” it added.
