Home Headlines Romero replies to QWIK’s counter-accusations

Romero replies to QWIK’s counter-accusations


ANGELES CITY – “There is no demolition job in the offing.”

Thus, business leader Rene Romero denied any ill motive in questioning the integrity of the QWIK private motor vehicle inspection center (PMVIC) in Barangay Sto. Domingo here and calling for an investigation on the facility after his BMW sportscar failed the road worthiness test last Jan. 11.

“I join the authorities and PMVIC in promoting road safety. I relied on their expertise. However, after the 2-step process to get a clearance, I have doubts as to the integrity of the testing procedure,” Romero said as he enumerated his answers on the charges of QWIK PMVIC manager Jun Hilomen against his allegations, to wit:

1) Let’s stick to the issue – the car failed the brake test. The authorized service center (BMW) inspected the car and confirmed it was in good working condition without doing any repair work. The car later passed the brake test.

How can the car in still the same state or condition fail at the first try and then later pass at the second try? This is a technical matter that the PMVIC must answer to all car owners.

2) Jun Hilomen agrees that there is a big discrepancy in the brake test figures! He has not explained the Brake Test consisting of — the test machine, the technical standard for passing or failing, the operator involvement, the calibration of the test machine, the generation and recording of results.

Instead, he concludes that the car was repaired in between tests. He can use his expertise to find out from the authorized service center the extent of inspectiondone to the car in between tests.

Sadly, he insists that work was done on the car resulting in the discrepancy in brake test figures.

3) My driver reported that the PMVIC personnel dressed in white uniform drove the car for the retest. I never said that it was Mr. Hilomen who drove the car.

The fact is the person who handled the car must have been a supervisor or manager of the facility, as compared to the technicians dressed in gray uniforms. The first test was presumably done by a technician. The second test was done by a senior officer. Is this the cause for a discrepancy in the brake test figures?

4) My driver was handed the stub number 85 at around 9 a.m. The alleged CCTV video will show the time that my driver returned to the facility at around 11 a.m. The entry time will show the amount of time required to test cars at this PMVIC from joining the line to the release of the test results.

The inconvenience and downtime to car owners can be sacrificed for the greater objective of promoting road safety. However, consider devoting one day at PMVIC and add another day at the LTO for registration for a total of fwo days. During this pandemic, the public expects an online appointment system.

5) The LTO IRR and announcements emphasized that the failed cars must pay P900 for a retest.

The PMVIC representatives stressed the retest fee when my car failed the brake test. I gave my driver the required test fee when the car was sent for the retest on January 15. My driver confirms that the PMVIC did not collect the P900 retest fee. I WISH TO CORRECT THE MISIMPRESSION THAT THE RESTEST FEE WAS INDEED PAID. The fact is there was no prior announcement as to the criteria to avail of Mr. Hilomen’s “humanitarian consideration.

“Is this a discretionary discount granted to all?”


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here