Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OG TRANSPORTATION
LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE
Regional Office No. 2
Tuguegarao City

RE: Case No. DS-2021-09

FOR Violation of MC 2019-2176

S2 DRIVING SCHOOL
Roxas, Isabela,
Respondent.
X----------------------------x

POSITION PAPER

COMES NOW the respondent, by herself and unto this Honorable Office of the
Regional Director, Land Transportation Office, Regional Office No. 02, most
respectfully submits the herein POSITION PAPER outlined as follows, to wit:

TIMELINESS OF THE
POSITION PAPER

Respondent received a copy of the Order directing her to submit a position

paper on September 27, 2021 and was given a period of ten (10) days within
which to submit the same. Considering that this Position Paper is filed today
October 7, 2021, the same is seasonably filed.

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

On the basis of a written complaints from Joy V. Guiab, Manager of RBG

Driving School, Agnes B. Martinez, proprietor of MBA Driving School and Ely G.
Mallanao, Administrator of EEM Driving School, filed on August 3, 2021, August 6,
2021 and August 10, 2021 respectively, for alleged conduct of marketing and
enrolment activity outside its geographical area of responsibility, S2 driving
school, owned and managed by the undersigned was issued by the Land
Transportation Office, Regional Office No. 2 a Show Cause Order directing it to
show cause why the Provisional Authority issued in its favor would not be
revoked for the above-mentioned violations. Surprisingly, in the same show cause
order, S2 Driving School was meted with a one (1) month suspension effective
from August 16, 2021 to September 16, 2021. On August 9, 2021, the undersigned
filed a Request for Bill of Particulars with Motion to Extend Period to Answer. On
August 11, 2021, the LTO Regional Director denied the twin motion in a Show
Cause Order. In the same Show Cause Order, the Office found that S2 Driving
School had been conducting marketing and enrolment activity outside the driving
school and/or authorized driving school kiosk in contravention of MC 2019-2176
and LTO Memorandum issued February 8, 2021.

On September 13, 2021, S2 Driving School appealed the suspension stating

among others that suspension may only be imposed after investigation and
monitoring visits has been conducted and it was found out that the school had
been violating the standards of existing rules and regulations or committed acts
prohibited under the Memorandum. In imposing the 30 day suspension, LTO did
not conduct investigation or monitoring visits on the alleged violations. On the
contrary, on the basis of the complaints only, notwithstanding that the affidavits
attached thereto are not notarized and therefore unverified, LTO Regional Office
No 02 “ found that S2 Driving School had been conducting marketing and
enrolment activity outside the driving school” and imposed the suspension. To
this date, her appeal was not acted upon and the suspension had already been
served by S2 driving school.

On September 20 and 27 2021, LTO Regional Office conducted 2 hearings and

terminated the proceedings without requiring the presence of the undersigned
respondent. Thereafter, it required the parties to submit a Position Paper.

ISSUE:

1. WHETHER OR NOT MARKETING AND ENROLMENT OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL

AND/OR THE AUTHORIZED KIOSK IS PROHIBITED AND PENALIZED.

2. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT HAD COMMITTED THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS.

3. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WAS VIOLATED.

ARGUMENT:

1. WHETHER OR NOT MARKETING AND ENROLMENT OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL

AND/OR THE AUTHORIZED KIOSK IS PROHIBITED AND PENALIZED.
 A perusal of the Memorandum 2019-2176 which the respondent allegedly
violated does not, in sections 18, 19 and 20 under Article V on Prohibited Acts and
Practices, include marketing or enrolment activity outside the school and/or
school kiosk. Apparently, marketing and enrolment, under any form, is allowed by
the Memorandum that it did not include such in it prohibited acts and practices.
Where a statute, contract or any legal document includes a list of items falling
into a category, the inclusion of certain items on that list should be presumed to
mean that any excluded items are intentionally outside the definition. Inclusio
unios est exclusion alterius.

The Memorandum dated February 8, 2021 asserted by the complainants to

have been violated too by the respondent which was issued by the LTO Regional
Director Sales was not a Memorandum designed to prohibit and penalized
marketing and enrolment outside the driving school and/or authorized kiosk but a
reminder that the same is considered by him as a violation and that it is
penalized. However, the said memorandum was issued only for the purpose of
requiring submission of location of driving school kiosk only to avert the
escalation of controversies regarding the conduct of marketing and enrolment
outside the driving school. And to say that marketing and enrolment outside the
driving school and/or school kiosk is already prohibited and penalized is without
basis and footing as there is no law or memorandum prohibiting and penalizing it
except for the memorandum of the good regional director issued to require the
submission of location of driving school kiosks.

And granting without admitting that indeed the memorandum of the good
director is the law on the matter, then every driving school in the region is guilty
of violating it because every driving school markets and enrolls outside the school
and more so outside the kiosks.

Further, the General Area of Responsibility issued by the regional office is for
LTO District Offices to establish their area of jurisdiction and not for driving
schools. To say that the GAOR also applies to school needs a defining order or a
memorandum or an implementing rule stating among others that the school
needs to operate only within the area of jurisdiction of the District Office having
control of its operations. Unfortunately, there is no order or memorandum or
implementing rule to that effect. Except for the February 8, 2021 memorandum
of the regional director issued for the submission of location of driving school
kiosks and where he expressed his opinion that marketing and enrolment outside
the school and the school kiosks is prohibited and penalized, there is no other
document pointing to the fact that S2 Driving School had violated a prohibition
regarding marketing and enrolment outside the general area of responsibility of
District Offices.
2. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT COMMITTED THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS.

In the complaint filed by Joy Guiab, the complainant mentioned unlawful and
irregular transactions had been committed by S2 driving school. She attached to
her complaint sworn affidavits of witnesses which was subscribed before the
police and definitely without proof of identification being shown by them to
prove that they were the same persons who executed the statements. Out of the
sixteen (16) who executed the statements, four (4) appeared during the hearing
to testify that they were called before the barangay hall to attend a meeting but
instead they were just required to pay P200.00 each which they allegedly did.
When asked to show a receipt, they said they were not given any and were just
told that they will be picked up on July 28, 29, and 30 for a seminar in Roxas,
Isabela. The witnesses claimed that the incident was only a hoax and a scam and
they did not believe it. In fact they claimed that the individuals alleged to be
representing S2 Driving School did not present any Identification Cards. It must be
considered that all the 16 witnesses signed a prepared sworn statement, the
same in all respect but on different dates. Their claim that they paid P200.00 is
questionable and incredible as they could not show receipts for the payment. The
four who appeared said it was a hoax and a scam and their reporting the same to
the police was because those allegedly involved did not present identification
cards. They did not remember any seminar to have transpired and that the only
thing they did was to pay P200.00. Under the circumstances, there may have
been a gathering that happened in Alicia, Isabela but there was no marketing or
enrolment that took place.

Agnes Martinez on the other hand investigated, apparently bent on killing S2

driving school, and claimed that S2 driving school allegedly conducted marketing
and enrolment activities in Ramon and Cordon, Isabela in violation of the
Memorandum of the regional Director dated February 8, 2021, not knowing that
the Memorandum was issued for the submission of location of School Kiosks.
Notwithstanding that her complaint was notarized, she attached statements of
witnesses that were handwritten and not subscribed, pictures of her meeting
insignificant persons and S2 forms that were perhaps filled out and executed in
Roxas, Isabela. During the hearing, only Abaya Bustamante, whose signed
statement claimed that he learned only of the seminar in facebook, appeared.
Considering that all the other witnesses did not appear, the written statements
were just mere scrap of papers. Further, records of LTO Ilagan shows that the
alleged violation being charged to S2 driving school had been committed by RBR
Driving School.

Non of the witnesses for Ely G. Malanao appeared, hence their written
statements and submissions like the alleged S2 driving school forms could not be
given weight and are just mere scrapsof paper. In his complaint, Malanao likewise
barked on S2’s alleged violation of Memorandum dated February 8, 2021 not
knowing that the said memorandum was issued only for the submission of
location of driving school kiosks.

A thorough and strict apprehension of the facts and circumstances alleged in

the three complaints, coupled with the evidence attached therein shows that the
complaints were merely a ploy by the three conspirators to destroy the
reputation of S2 driving School. Clearly, it was a set up laid by them, in conspiracy
with some employees of the Land Transportation Office, to cause the closure of
S2 driving school and so they can open their own schools in Roxas, Isabela and
Cabaroguis, Quirino. Inspite of their concerted efforts however, all their evidence
should not be given weight and should be treated as mere scraps of paper
because S2 driving school did not commit the acts they claim is a violation of
Memorandum Circular No. 2019-2176 and the Memorandum issued by the
Regional Director dated February 8, 2021.

3. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WAS VIOLATED.

As a rule, technical rules of procedure and evidence are relaxed in

administrative proceedings. Nonetheless, administrative agencies must still
comply with the fundamental principle of due process. (Magcamit v. IAS-PDEA,
G.R No. 198140, Jan. 25, 2016) It must adhere to the principles of administrative
procedure laid down in Ang Tibay v. CIR, 69PHIL635, 1940.

In the case at bar, LTO regional Office No. 02 without allowing the motion for
extension of time to file answer filed by the respondent as well as it request for
bill of particulars, suspended the operation of S2 driving school for one (1) month
after it had found, without conducting any investigation or monitoring visits as
required by MC 2019-2176, that S2 driving school has been conducting marketing
and enrolment activity outside the driving school and/or authorized driving school
kiosk. On the basis alone of the complaints filed by Martinez, Guiab and Malanao,
LTO region 2 claimed they had found S2 driving school to be guilty of the
violations stated in the complaint. To cure the manifest impartiality and bias, LTO
region 02 conducted two (2) hearings on the case accommodating only the
complainants and denying the request of respondent’s lawyer to set a hearing for
the respondent to present her case. Patently, this is denying the respondent her
day in court. LTO region 2 also questioned the absence of respondent who was
then under quarantine, during the taking of complainant’s evidence and even
questioned the respondent’s lawyer’s attendance without authority
notwithstanding the fact that even in another case
filed before them, the lawyer had already appeared for the respondent.

By denying the request of respondent’s lawyer, LTO region 2 had denied one
of the cardinal principles of administrative due process and undeniably
respondent’s right to hearing and to present her case and submit evidence in her
defense. And by doing so, LTO region 2 denied the consideration of evidence to
be presented by the respondent. And by denying the evidence to be presented by
the respondent, it had violated the inviolable rights of the respondent as LTO
region 2 cannot now decide on the evidence presented considering the it denied
the presentation of these evidences.

POSITION OF THE RESPONDENT

It is clear to the respondent that the complaints filed by Martinez, Guiab and
Malanao were used by LTO region 2 to commence an administrative proceedings
against S2 driving school and not to trigger a fact finding investigation. It is clear
too that the suspension imposed on S2 driving school, which was not a result of
an investigation or monitoring visit as required by LTO MC 2021-2176 was only
imposed to destroy the reputation of S2 driving school and the undersigned. It
was an act committed by the regional director in excess of his jurisdiction and
definitely smacks of abuse of authority. The complaints and all its attachments do
not comply with the requirements set forth by law and are therefore considered
mere scraps of paper. That even the alleged violations that was made basis of the
suspension were not existent and the proceedings which are all consequent
thereof are mere inventions that does not deserve any iota of consideration.

From all the foregoing, it is the position of the respondent that the complaints
are bereft of substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the respondent
had committed a violation of LTO MC 2019-2176 or LTO regional director’s
Memorandum dated February 8, 2021.

PRAYER

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING PREMISES, it is most respectfully prayed of the

Honorable Director , Land Transportation Office, Tuguegarao City to dismiss the
complaints filed by Agnes Martinez, Ely Malanao and Joy Guiab for lack of merit
and substantial evidence.
 ROXAS, ISABELA, October 6, 2021.

DOLORIN SUMAWANG
Respondent

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ______ day of ___________,

2021 at Roxas, Isabela.

Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of

Copy furnished:

Joy Guiab

Agnes Martinez

Ely Malanao

Edgar Galvante
Asst. Secretary
Land Transportation Office.