TO clarify, TNCs do not employ the drivers, unlike TNVS providers or operators. TNCs merely offer a digital platform to match passengers with available TNVS vehicles and drivers. The hiring, supervision, and operational control over the drivers rests entirely with the vehicle owners or operators, not the TNC. Therefore, under current laws and jurisprudence, TNCs cannot be held liable for the independent acts of TNVS drivers using their platform, in the absence of an employer-employee relationship or a finding of gross negligence on the part of the TNC.
Relevant to this discussion is Republic Act No. 11659, which amended the Public Service Act. Section 2(k) of the law defines Public Utility Vehicles as follows:
“Public Utility Vehicles or PUVs refer to internal combustion engine vehicles that carry passengers and/or domestic cargo for a fee, offering services to the public, namely trucks-for-hire, UV express service, public utility buses , public utility jeepneys, tricycles, filcabs, and taxis: Provided, That transport vehicles accredited with and operating through transport network corporations shall not be considered as public utility vehicles.”
This provision explicitly excludes vehicles operating through TNCs from the classification of PUVs. As such, the legal framework that governs traditional PUVs may not necessarily apply to TNVS and TNCs. If the strict letter of the law is followed, even both TNCs and TNVS may fall outside the direct regulatory jurisdiction of the LTFRB, except insofar as they are required to obtain accreditation. Notably, TNCs are not required to secure a Certificate of Public Convenience or a franchise, which is instead required of the TNVS operators or vehicle owners.
This statutory gap is something that should be seriously reviewed by Congress, especially in light of the public safety concerns surrounding TNVS operations. The lack of clear regulatory control and the unique structure of the TNC-TNVS relationship present challenges in enforcing accountability and ensuring passenger protection.
While current laws may not impose direct legal liability on TNCs, it remains incumbent upon them to exercise due diligence in the operation of their platform. This includes implementing and enforcing effective vetting, monitoring, and disciplinary systems for the TNVS drivers who use their services.
In the present case, it has been reported that the involved driver has already been banned by the TNC. Other TNCs to which the same driver was connected have also taken similar steps to ensure that he no longer has access to any ride-hailing platforms.
In sum, the LCSP calls for justice and accountability for all parties responsible in this disturbing incident. Based on existing laws, only the driver and the vehicle’s owner or operator appear to have potential criminal, civil, or administrative liabilities. The TNC, due to its legal and operational structure, may not be held liable under current regulations.
Nevertheless, the LCSP urges regulators and legislators to revisit the existing legal framework governing TNVS and TNC operations. The safety of commuters must be paramount. Passengers using ride-hailing services must be protected from harassment, threats, and violence, especially from those entrusted with their safe transport.
The commuting public deserves a safe, reliable, and accountable transportation system. LCSP will continue to advocate for reforms and legal clarity to ensure that incidents like this are properly addressed- and more importantly, prevented.
Atty. Albert N. Sadili
Spokesperson – Lawyers for Commuters Safety and Protection
09660859816 – Viber and Mobile number
