THE Supreme Court (SC) has given the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) the green light to enforce its 2006 decision holding a car dealer liable for the defects of a brand-new vehicle that a consumer bought for P3.37 million in 2003.
In a ruling penned by Associate Justice Martin Villarama Jr., the SC held that the April 28, 2006, resolution of the trade secretary “had become final and executory” when PGA Cars Inc. failed to appeal the ruling within 15 days.
The DTI, in the said ruling, affirmed the September 23, 2005, decision of the DTI’s Consumer Arbitration Office (CAO) that directed PGA Cars Inc. to refund the consumer the purchase price of the BMW sedan amounting to P3.37 million, in addition to the payment of costs of litigation in the amount of P5,000 and P10,000 as administrative fines payable to the DTI.
The case stemmed from the petition filed by Concordia Moran on behalf of his deceased husband Emmanuel Moran Jr., who bought a brand-new BMW car from PGA Cars Inc.
“Wherefore, the petition for review on certiorari is granted. The resolutions dated March 13, 2009, and June 25, 2010, in CA-GR SP 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.
Court records showed that Moran filed a case against PGA Cars in line with the provisions of the Consumer Act of the Philippines under Republic Act (RA) 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.”
The Court reversed a ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) that dismissed the appeal they filed against the
decision of the Office of the President (OP), which junked the ruling of the DTI. 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 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.”
When his motion to reconsider the OP’s ruling was denied, Moran elevated the issue before the CA on the ground that the OP has no jurisdiction to review the resolution of the trade secretary.
But the CA dismissed his petition, prompting Mrs. Moran, in substitution of her husband, to raise the issue before the SC.
The High Court pointed out that the OP has no jurisdiction to review the resolutions of the DTI Secretary on disputes involving violations of RA 7394.
It said that under RA 7394, “the DTI has the authority and the mandate to act upon complaints filed by consumers pursuant to the state policy of protecting the consumer against deceptive, unfair and unconscionable sales, acts or practices.”