DTI decisions on consumer complaints are appealable to high court, not to the Palace – SC

The Supreme Court has upheld a Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) ruling holding a car dealer liable for the defects of a brand new vehicle a consumer bought for P3.3 million in 2003.

 

In a decision dated last September 29 but released to the media on Tuesday, the SC through Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama Jr upheld an April 28, 2006 resolution of the DTI Secretary granting a complaint filed by Emmanuel Moran Jr who bought a brand new BMW car from PGA Cars, Inc., now the dealer of Audi vehicles.

 

Court records showed that Moran filed a case against PGA Cars, Inc. before the DTI. The laws cited as bases were the Consumer Act of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 7394), which is now augmented by RA 10642, known as the Philippine Lemon Law “to strengthen consumer protection in the purchase of brand new motor vehicles.”

 

On September 23, 2005, the DTI’s Consumer Arbitration Office (CAO) resolved the complaint and directed PGA Cars, Inc. to refund the consumer the purchase price of the BMW car (P3.37 million) in addition to the payment of costs of litigation (P5,000) and administrative fines (P10,000) payable to the DTI. 

 

The Office of the DTI Secretary eventually affirmed the DTI-CAO resolution.

 

PGA Cars Inc elevated the case to the Office of the President, which ruled in favor of the car dealer and junked the DTI ruling. 

 

In its April 3, 2007 decision, the OP reversed the DTI Secretary’s resolution with a ruling that PGA Cars, Inc. could not be held liable for the products defects of the car bought by Moran because “private respondent (PGA Cars, Inc.) was not the manufacturer, builder, producer or importer of the subject BMW car but only its seller.”

 

The Morans filed a motion to reconsider the OP decision but it was denied, prompting them to bring the case to the Court of Appeals, insisting the OP has no jurisdiction to review the resolution of the DTI Secretary.  

 

The CA however dismissed Mr. Moran's appeal, prompting his wife, Concordia Moran, that time in substitution of her deceased husband, to raise the issue before the SC.

 

In its ruling, the SC reversed and set aside the CA decision saying the OP has no jurisdiction to review the resolutions of the DTI Secretary on disputes involving violations of RA 7394.

 

The high tribunal said that under RA 7394, “the DTI has the authority and the mandate to act upon complaints filed by the consumers pursuant to the State policy of protecting the consumer against deceptive, unfair and unconscionable sales, acts or practices.”

 

It added that the law provides for arbitration procedure “whereby consumer complaints are heard and investigated by consumer arbitration officers whose decisions are appealable to the DTI Secretary.”

 

At the same time, the SC said that RA 7394 “expressly provided for immediate judicial relief from decisions of the DTI Secretary by filing a petition for certiorari with the ‘proper court.’”

 

Thus, the SC said, PGA Cars, Inc. should have elevated the case to the CA instead of bringing the issue before the OP.

 

“In filing a petition for certiorari before the CA raising the issue of the OP’s lack of jurisdiction, complainant Moran, Jr. thus availed of the proper remedy,” the SC said.

 

“Wherefore, the petition for review on certiorari is granted. The Resolutions dated March 13, 2009 and June 25, 2010 in CA-G.R. SP No. 107059 are reversed and set aside. The Decision dated April 3, 2007 and Order dated October 22, 2008 of the Office of the President are hereby declared null and void. Consequently, the Resolution dated April 28, 2006 of the DTI Secretary is hereby reinstated and upheld,” the SC ruled.  — ELR, GMA News