Case Digest (G.R. No. 244242)
Facts:
On October 16, 2007, Myrnanette M. Jarra purchased a 150-gram pack of Nestle Bear Brand Powdered Filled Milk from Joy Store in Quezon City. Upon opening the package, Jarra found larvae inside and noticed the milk powder appeared yellowish and lumpy with a strong stale odor. The following day, Jarra filed a complaint with the Department of Health Consumer Arbitration Office of the National Capital Regional Office (CAO-NCR). During conciliation proceedings, the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD) was requested to conduct a laboratory test, which confirmed the presence of live insect larvae and deemed the product unfit for consumption. Subsequently, on January 11, 2016, the CAO-NCR found Nestle Philippines, Inc. liable for violating Republic Act No. 7394 (the Consumer Act of the Philippines) by distributing adulterated food. Nestle was ordered to pay a fine, make an assurance of compliance, reimburse the complainant for two bottles of RC Cola (or their value), pay expenses incurred in
Case Digest (G.R. No. 244242)
Facts:
- Purchase and Discovery of Adulterated Product
- On October 16, 2007, complainant Myrnanette M. Jarra bought a 150-gram pack of Nestle Bear Brand Powdered Filled Milk from Joy Store in Quezon City.
- Upon opening, Jarra discovered objects inside resembling larvae and noticed the milk powder appeared yellowish and lumpy.
- Filing of Complaint and Initial Proceedings
- Jarra filed a complaint the next day with the Department of Health (DOH) Consumer Arbitration Office in the National Capital Regional Office (CAO-NCR).
- During conciliation, CAO-NCR requested the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD) to conduct laboratory testing on the product.
- BFAD Report and Findings
- The BFAD issued Report of Analysis No. FCM07-10-18-151 on October 22, 2007, reporting live insect larvae and a strong stale odor in the product, rendering it unfit for consumption.
- CAO-NCR Resolution
- On January 11, 2016, CAO-NCR found Nestle liable for violating Republic Act No. 7394 (Consumer Act of the Philippines).
- The order included an administrative fine of ₱20,000, restitution with two bottles of RC Cola or equivalent reimbursement, payment of ₱5,000 for expenses, condemnation of the product, and assurance to comply with RA 7394.
- Nestle's motion for reconsideration was denied on June 8, 2016.
- Appeal to the Office of the Secretary of DOH
- Nestle appealed; on April 17, 2017, the Secretary of Health affirmed the CAO-NCR Resolution with modification: deleting the award of actual damages of ₱5,000.
- The Secretary upheld the BFAD findings, presuming BFAD’s technical expertise and the probative value of its report.
- Nestle’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the Secretary on September 11, 2017.
- Petition for Certiorari Before the Court of Appeals (CA)
- Nestle filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, claiming grave abuse of discretion by DOH.
- The CA reversed and set aside the DOH Decision and Resolution on October 19, 2018.
- The CA reasoned that the BFAD report did not specify whether adulteration occurred during Nestle's custody or at the point of sale or storage, suggesting the infestation could be due to factors unrelated to Nestle.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court
- DOH filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45, asserting no grave abuse of discretion.
- DOH maintained that substantial evidence existed proving Nestle’s liability under RA 7394.
- Nestle countered that the courts should not be bound by administrative findings lacking substantial evidence or where grave abuse of discretion is apparent.
Issues:
- Whether the DOH acted with grave abuse of discretion in affirming the CAO-NCR decision holding Nestle liable for violation of RA 7394.
- Whether the CA correctly reversed the DOH Decision and Resolution on the ground of lack of substantial evidence or grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)