TWO separate cases involving “taxi out-of-line” violations were brought to the attention of the Lawyers for Commuters Safety and Protection.
In the first case, a taxi driver was apprehended for allegedly operating as a colorum vehicle because he picked up a passenger at NAIA and brought them to San Mateo, Rizal. Authorities claimed the taxi’s route was limited to “Pasay to any point in Metro Manila.” They considered San Mateo as outside Metro Manila—even though it borders Marikina and is only separated from Quezon City by a bridge.
In the second case, a passenger traveling from Las Piñas to Cavite was refused by a driver who claimed his route was limited to “Quezon City to any point in Metro Manila.” The passenger suspected the real reason for the refusal was to avoid traffic and reported the driver for “Refusal to Convey Passenger.”
These situations highlight a troubling dilemma: taxi drivers are penalized for going “out of line” in one case, yet face complaints for “refusing to convey passengers” in another.
From the passenger’s perspective, the priority is simply to get a ride and reach their destination. Rarely, if ever, do passengers ask whether a taxi is authorized to travel only within Metro Manila, Mega Manila, or to any point in Luzon. Some drivers use the “Metro Manila only” excuse as a loophole—not to comply with regulations, but to avoid using the meter and instead negotiate fixed fares.
This issue clearly needs the attention of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board and Land Transportation Office, especially since complaints about snubbing (locally called “isnabero”) taxi drivers are persistent. LCSP recommends expanding Metro Manila taxi routes to cover Mega Manila.
Today’s Metro Manila is not the same as it was in the 1970s or 1980s when provinces like Rizal, Bulacan, Cavite, and Laguna were seen as distant. Nowadays, thousands of motorists and commuters travel daily from these nearby provinces to work in Metro Manila. The concept of Mega Manila is already recognized in transport planning, and there are taxis designated for Mega Manila service.
Unfortunately, many passengers are either refused service or left without available transport. One suggestion is to allow Metro Manila taxis to pick up passengers in Metro Manila and drop them off in nearby provinces. As for the return trip, there’s almost always someone needing a ride back—why should that be an issue? Worse, some drivers use the excuse of an empty return trip to justify demanding a fixed (contracted) fare.
Meanwhile, taxis authorized for “any point in Luzon” rarely operate long trips. After all, who would use the meter for a ride to Ilocos or Bicol? What about toll fees, meals, or the return trip?
Realistically, taxis with Mega Manila routes are the most aligned with the current needs of the riding public.
In the first example above, why penalize a driver who didn’t refuse a passenger, uses the meter, and simply tries to help someone with no other options?
And in the second case, why allow a driver to use “Metro Manila only” as a pretext to refuse service and potentially solicit a contracted fare?
The LTFRB must issue clear, updated policies on this matter. A well-defined regulation allowing Metro Manila taxis to pick up and drop off passengers within Mega Manila will benefit both commuters and drivers.
Atty. Albert N. Sadili
Spokesperson – Lawyers for Commuters Safety and Protection
09660859816
