LTO to impose up to PHP40K penalty if you dont transfer vehicle registration

[Motortrend]

Nowhere in 4.2 does it say that the buyer is liable. In the absence of which, no one can be held liable.

[papi smith]

Nowhere in 4.2 does it say that the buyer is liable. In the absence of which, no one can be held liable.

Sinadya ata gawing vague ang provisions para sa 4.2, pwede sabihin ng taga LTO na may penalty either the buyer or seller if hindi na transfer, 4.3 para pwede sabihin na tig 40k na each party. Key here is ignorance of the parties involved and that LTO interpretation shall prevail. Kung hindi ka naman abogado makikipagtalo ka ba sa kanila? Makikipagtalo ka ba o maglalagay ka na lang? 😅

[oj88]

Nowhere in 4.2 does it say that the buyer is liable. In the absence of which, no one can be held liable.

Meron naman. It references section 3, which states the buyer/new owner's responsibility (3.1).

[Motortrend]

Meron naman. It references section 3, which states the buyer/new owner's responsibility (3.1).

But it is not clear. They made it clear under 4.1 that the 20k shall be imposed on the seller. Why leave it out for 4.2?

[oj88]

But it is not clear. They made it clear under 4.1 that the 20k shall be imposed on the seller. Why leave it out for 4.2?

It's no doubt far from perfect. Still, it is easy to infer from it that the penalty described in section 4.2, referencing section 3, is directed at the buyer.

4.3 is vague and/or unnecessary. One party can't be both the seller and the buyer of the vehicle at the same time and be liable of the 40k penalty. Or am I missing a specific situation?

[dr. d]

It's no doubt far from perfect. Still, it is easy to infer from it that the penalty described in section 4.2, referencing section 3, is directed at the buyer.

4.3 is vague and/or unnecessary. One party can't be both the seller and the buyer of the vehicle at the same time and be liable of the 40k penalty. Or am I missing a specific situation?

from what i understand,
4.1 + 4.2 = 4.3 .
pinaghatian nang seller and buyer, yung 40K.
btw, where did they get that 40K figure from?

but i agree,
that is not the way to pen rules. where folks have to imaginate, extrapolate or interpolate, what they mean.
dapat malinaw para sa lahat.

so, if i-the-seller disclose my sale of yon car by giving LTO a copy of my deed of sale to xxx buyer, am i now automatically not liable for whatever damages that car will inflict on humankind? or do i have to present my documents to them everytime that car figures in a fender-bender or other ownership-sensitive issue? because if that is the forthcoming scenario, why go thru the rigmarole for the seller in the first place?

[Motortrend]

from what i understand,
4.1 + 4.2 = 4.3 .
pinaghatian nang seller and buyer, yung 40K.
btw, where did they get that 40K figure from?

but i agree,
that is not the way to pen rules. where folks have to imaginate, extrapolate or interpolate, what they mean.
dapat malinaw para sa lahat.

so, if i-the-seller disclose my sale of yon car by giving LTO a copy of my deed of sale to xxx buyer, am i now automatically not liable for whatever damages that car will inflict on humankind? or do i have to present my documents to them everytime that car figures in a fender-bender or other ownership-sensitive issue? because if that is the forthcoming scenario, why go thru the rigmarole for the seller in the first place?

IKR? We should not put up with mediocrity specially when an excessive penalty is being imposed.

No, the seller, by disclosing the sale/transfer to LTO does not absolve the seller of liability. According to the AO, the registered owner (seller) is still liable for whatever damages that car will inflict on humankind. And you ask, then what for? The seller acts as a snitch for LTO to be able to fine the buyer.

[carxynogen]

Naku, effective na pala tong order na to last Sept 16, 2024.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxM0ibKahwY

[oj88]

from what i understand,
4.1 + 4.2 = 4.3 .
pinaghatian nang seller and buyer, yung 40K.
btw, where did they get that 40K figure from?

Yes, that seems how they are expressing it. If you take it at face value, that's a penalty of 20k from the buyer and 20k from the seller... 40k total collectable on LTO's part.

But I take back what I said earlier..... A party apparently can be both the buyer and the seller for the same car if they are into the buy and sell business. So imagine a car that was sold to ABC Corp., a used car business, ABC would have to transfer the ownership from the original owner to "ABC Corp." while the car sits on their lot. But then once the car is sold, ABC needs to submit the necessary docs of the sale to LTO. Failing both would incur that 40k penalty to ABC.

so, if i-the-seller disclose my sale of yon car by giving LTO a copy of my deed of sale to xxx buyer, am i now automatically not liable for whatever damages that car will inflict on humankind? or do i have to present my documents to them everytime that car figures in a fender-bender or other ownership-sensitive issue? because if that is the forthcoming scenario, why go thru the rigmarole for the seller in the first place?

Unless I'm misinterpreting section 6, it should've been that after filing the necessary paperwork, the seller should be absolved of any responsibility in whatever the buyer does with the vehicle, as it is beyond his/her control.

[carxynogen]

Naku, effective na pala tong order na to last Sept 16, 2024.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxM0ibKahwY

Maganda pagkatanong ni Ted, puro mga valid points na hindi pinag iisipan sa kung sino man nag draft ng AO na to.
Halatang walang alam yung Executive Director sa mga question niya.

Kailangan talaga i challenge na to, else, busog na naman mga fixer.
If hingan ka lang ng 5k per car para lang ma process, aba iaaccept nalang kaysa mag multa ng 20k.