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

[dr. d]

sorry for the OT...

dati, natatawa din ako sa price ng pasalo kasi parang mas malaki pa babayaran ng pasalo buyer in the long term kesa sya na lang kumuha na sariling loan...

pero later, I met a guy na car for hire business nya, he needed to upgrade his car and (technically) wala syang source of income... so his only solution was to get a 2 year old car na "pasalo"
seller was willing ipasa sa kanya yung car. he paid the "required down payment" then sya na lang magtutuloy ng loan.

if the seller is in earnest and honest, and if they involve the mortgage holder, all should be well.

[Ry_Tower]

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?

This is the correct and more logical explanation. If 4.1 is for the Seller, then in a buy and sell the other is the Buyer which 4.2 logically refers to in Sec. 3.1 as "the NEW OWNER shall process the registration and transfer" which is what really happens naman. You have to read the AO as a whole. Tawag dyan in statutory construction is Contextual Reading . Statutes are to be read as a whole, in context, and, if possible, to give effect to every word of the statute. A form of harmonizing to give effect to the best extent possible as intended.

Yung 4.3 talaga problematic dyan.

[Motortrend]

"That's the refuge of the uninitiated."

- Senator Joker Arroyo

[Ry_Tower]

Good luck with that.

Sorry but I've handled cases na yung new owner naman talaga ang pinagbabayad. Lalo na at nakalagay sa DOAS na the buyer shall handle the transfer and all costs associated with it.

Natalo ka na ba sa kaso re registered-owner rule?

[dr. d]

liability clause 6.1 .
it would seem, even if the seller complies with everything in reporting the sale of his car to the LTO,
if the buyer does not transfer ownership to his name,
old owner is still liable when said car commits a transgression while being driven by buyer.

why?
why penalize seller for a sin committed by buyer?
is there something LTO is not telling us?

[oj88]

liability clause 6.1 .
it would seem, even if the seller complies with everything in reporting the sale of his car to the LTO,
if the buyer does not transfer owership to his name,
old owner is still liable when said car commits transgression while being driven by buyer.

why?
why penalize seller for a sin committed by buyer?

Back read. There are exceptions to the "Registered owner rules".

[dr. d]

Back read. There are exceptions to the "Registered owner rules".

yes, but the way the clause is written, it would seem the two statements run counter to each other.
6.1 first sentence states that even if i had complied in submitting my deed of sale document to the LTO, i am still liable for said vehicle because the car is still in my name because buyer had not yet applied for change of ownership. "seller's liability is not extinguished."
but in the very next sentence, it states that the Registered Owners Rules (including previous sale, of which the document is in their face) shall still prevail.
does that mean, i still have to submit my deed of sale to the investigators, which they already have a copy of?

... i am not a lawyer, but that clause seems to have been written via cut and paste...

[Motortrend]

yes, but the way the clause is written, it would seem the two statements run counter to each other.
6.1 first sentence states that even if i had complied in submitting my deed of sale document to the LTO, i am still liable for said vehicle because the car is still in my name because buyer had not yet applied for change of ownership. "seller's liability is not extinguished."
but in the very next sentence, it states that the Registered Owners Rules (including previous sale, of which the document is in their face) shall still prevail.
does that mean, i still have to submit my deed of sale to the investigators, which they already have a copy of?

... i am not a lawyer, but that clause seems to have been written via cut and paste...

Exactly. Still shaking my head.

[oj88]

yes, but the way the clause is written, it would seem the two statements run counter to each other.
6.1 first sentence states that even if i had complied in submitting my deed of sale document to the LTO, i am still liable for said vehicle because the car is still in my name because buyer had not yet applied for change of ownership. "seller's liability is not extinguished."
but in the very next sentence, it states that the Registered Owners Rules (including previous sale, of which the document is in their face) shall still prevail.
does that mean, i still have to submit my deed of sale to the investigators, which they already have a copy of?

... i am not a lawyer, but that clause seems to have been written via cut and paste...

In effect lang yan if the new owner didn't transfer it to his/her name and the vehicle is still under your name. HOWEVER, once napatunayan mo na you did due diligence by reporting the sale and proving that you no longer own the vehicle when the incident happened, abswelto ka.

That's how I interpret it.

[papi smith]

Yung 4.3 talaga problematic dyan.

Ang pinakaproblematic dito ay ung hindi sila nag conduct ng info campaign kasabay ng pag publish nila so the public had at least 15 days before the order took effect last Sep 16. Dapat nga may at least 6 months grace period ito upon effectivity bago nila ipatupad. Ang problema is it just came quietly and swift into the night. Boom!