Dear PAO,

There is an ongoing construction project in a private compound near the main intersection of our town. This project has been ongoing for more than a year now and has caused severe traffic congestion on the highway, as backhoes are placed on the public road. Some residents have already raised complaints due to the traffic and the unreasonable delay in finishing the project, not to mention the seemingly negligent operation of their backhoes. There have been several incidents wherein the backhoes damaged passing vehicles due to the inattentiveness of its operators who were watching videos and even playing games on their phones while operating the equipment. Our question now is: can the driver-operator, along with the owner of these backhoes, be held liable for distracted driving when they use their mobile devices while operating their vehicle on the highway? We heard others saying that construction trucks like backhoes are not included in the law against distracted driving. We hope you can give us advice about this. Thank you in advance, and God bless!

Paddy

Dear Paddy,

It appears that the applicable law in the situation you narrated is Republic Act (RA) 10913, known as the Anti-Distracted Driving Act. According to this law, it is unlawful to use mobile communication devices while operating motor vehicles (Sec. 4). This law was passed in line with the policy of the State to safeguard the public from the dangerous and possibly injurious effect of unrestrained use of electronic mobile devices that distracts motorists while on the road (Sec. 2).

Motor vehicles are defined by this law as any vehicle used in public highways that are propelled by any power other than muscular power. (Sec. 3(g) Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 10913)

As to the claim that backhoes are not covered by the law against distracted driving, Section 5 of the IRR specifically includes backhoes that are operated in public roads in the coverage of the Anti-Distracted Driving Act, to wit:

“Section 5. Extent of Coverage xxx

“b. Wheeled agricultural machineries such as tractors and construction equipment such as graders, roller, backhoes, pay loaders, cranes, bulldozers, mobile concrete mixers and the like, and other forms of conveyances such as bicycles, pedicabs, habal-habal, trolleys, “kuliglig”, wagons, carriages, carts, sledges, chariots or the like, whether animal or human-powered, are covered by the provisions of this IRR as long as the same are operated or driven in public thoroughfares, highways or streets, or under the circumstances where public safety is under consideration. xxx” (Emphasis supplied)

It is clear therefore that backhoes, when operated on public roads, are covered under RA 10913. As such, the use of its driver of an electronic device during its operation on public roads can be penalized under this law.

As to the liability of the owner and/or operator of a backhoe driven by a distracted driver, the law states that:

“The owner and/or operator of the vehicle driven by the offender shall be directly and principally held liable together with the offender for the fine, unless he or she is able to convincingly prove that he or she has exercised extraordinary diligence in the selection and supervision of his or her drivers in general, and the offending driver in particular.” (Sec. 9, Rule 4, IRR of RA 10913) Emphasis supplied

“The IRR of RA 10913 further clarifies this matter when it expressly mentioned kuliglig among the types of agricultural machineries covered by the law, to wit:

“Wheeled agricultural machineries such as tractors and construction equipment such as graders, roller, backhoes, pay loaders, cranes, bulldozers, mobile concrete mixers and the like, and other forms of conveyances such as bicycles, pedicabs, habal-habal, trolleys, “kuliglig”, wagons, carriages, carts, sledges, chariots or the like, whether animal or human-powered, are covered by the provisions of this IRR as long as the same are operated or driven in public thoroughfares, highways or streets, or under the circumstances where public safety is under consideration.” (Sec. 5 (b) )

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]