Republic of the Philippines )

City of Butuan ) SS

AFFIDAVIT TO CONTEST THE APPREHENSION

I, MARIE CHRIS SAMONTINA QUIAMBAO, Filipino citizen, of legal

age, married, and presently residing at Purok Kamagong, Paltic, Dingalan,
Aurora, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose
and say:

1. That I am the registered owner of an Nissan Van 2019 Model

(hereinafter referred as VAN) with Plate No. NEH 6571.

2. That on March 2, 2022 at about 5:50 PM at the vicinity of Brgy.

Ampayon, Butuan City, while the VAN was in the possession of the
driver LARRY JUN SUAREZ ESCUTIN with residence at Km 24, Emilio
Aguinaldo Highway, Anabu II-C, Imus, Cavite, VAN was apprehended
by LTFRB Caraga Region apprehending team (“TEAM” for brevity) at
allegedly for a violation “COLORUM – PRIVATE MV OPERATING AS
FOR HIRE WITH 4 PASSENGERS ON BOARD FROM AMPAYON TO
3 SIBAGAT AND TAGUM WITH DENOMINATION P300.00 TAGUM
AND 50.00 SIBAGAT PER HEAD.”

3. THE ALLEGATION THAT THE VAN IS COLORUM IS NOT

ADMITTED THUS THE APPREHENSION IS HEREBY BEING
CONTESTED.

4. The burden of proof lies on the party alleging the violation. Hence, it
was incumbent upon the TEAM to prove the fact that the VAN is
colorum.

5. In this case, the TEAM alleged that the VAN has “4 PASSENGERS ON
BOARD FROM AMPAYON TO 3 SIBAGAT AND TAGUM WITH
DENOMINATION P300.00 TAGUM AND 50.00 SIBAGAT PER
HEAD.”

6. Aside from bare allegations, the TEAM failed to present any other clear
and convincing evidence to substantiate that the passengers are paying.
They merely stated, “WITH DENOMINATION P300.00 TAGUM AND
50.00 SIBAGAT PER HEAD”. DENOMINATION is the face value of a
banknote or a coin, it cannot be equated as FARE. (emphasis ours)

7. In view of the basic rule that mere allegation is not evidence and is not
equivalent to proof, the allegation is essentially self-serving and devoid
of any evidentiary weight. (Amalia S. Meńez vs Status Maritime Corp.,
G.R. No. 227523, August 29, 2018)

Page 1 of 3
 8. Further, to solicit passengers in Ampayon for Tagum from a column of
Bachelor Express buses and Metro Shuttles during the passenger peak
hour of 5:50 PM is inconceivable. Likewise, for a private van to wrestle
customers of DATSCO, AGSURTRANSCO, and other PUVs whose
assertive barkers are on place means trouble. The Office of LTFRB
Caraga Region is just a kilometer away. Thus, the allegation that the
VAN was in Ampayon soliciting passengers cannot be supported by
reality of facts.

9. Under Joint Administrative Order No. 2014-01, a motor vehicle is

considered operating as “colorum” under any of the following
circumstances:
a. A private motor vehicle operating as a PUV but without proper
authority from the LTFRB;
b. A PUV operating outside of its approved route or area without a
prior permit from the Board or outside the exceptions provided
under existing memorandum circulars;
c. A PUV operating differently from its authorized denomination (ex.
Those approved as school service but operating as UV express, or
those approved as tourist bus transport but operating as city or
provincial bus);
d. A PUV with suspended or cancelled CPC and the Decision/Order of
suspension or cancellation is executory; and
e. A PUV with expired CPC and without without a pending
application for extension of validity timely filed before the Board.

10. For the private motor to be apprehended as “colorum”, it must be

operating as a public utility vehicle.

11. From the Civil Code and Public Service Act, the elements of a common
carrier/public utility vehicle/public transport conveyance are:

a. persons, corporations, firms or associations;

b. engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers,
goods or both;
c. means of carriage is by land, water or air;
d. the carrying of passengers, goods or both is for compensation;
e. the service is offered to the public without distinction.
(emphasis ours)

12. In this instant case, the TEAM failed to present any clear and
convincing evidence that the carrying of passengers is for
compensation. They merely stated, “WITH DENOMINATION P300.00
TAGUM AND 50.00 SIBAGAT PER HEAD”. Again, DENOMINATION
is the face value of a banknote or a coin, it cannot be equated as FARE.

13. Therefore, under Joint Administrative Order No. 2014-01, it cannot be

considered COLORUM under the circumstance “A private motor

Page 2 of 3
 vehicle operating as a PUV but without proper authority from the
LTFRB.”

14. That I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing
facts and in order to contest the apprehension.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, undersigned Affiant-Owner is

respectfully praying for the kind compassion and understanding of the
Honorable DOTr/LTFRB to RELEASE the VAN on the ground that, it was NOT
A CIRCUMSTANCE CONSIDERED AS COLORUM - A PRIVATE MOTOR
VEHICLE OPERATING AS FOR HIRE.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 7th day

of March 2022 at Butuan City, Philippines.

MARIE CHRIS SAMONTINA QUIAMBAO

Affiant-Owner

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this 7 th day of March 2022

at Butuan City, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me her competent proof of
identity.

Doc. No. _____;

Page No. _____;
Book No. VIII;
Series of 2022.

Page 3 of 3