Case Digest (G.R. No. 244242)
Facts:
Department of Health, Represented by Its Secretary, petitioner, vs. Nestle Philippines, Inc., respondent, G.R. No. 244242, September 14, 2020, the Supreme Court Second Division, Delos Santos, J., writing for the Court.On October 16, 2007, complainant Mymanette M. Jarra purchased a 150g pack of Nestle Bear Brand Powdered Filled Milk from a neighborhood store in Quezon City; when she opened the foil pack she observed objects resembling larvae and a yellowish, lumpy, stale powder. The next day Jarra filed a complaint with the Department of Health’s Consumer Arbitration Office — National Capital Region (CAO‑NCR). The Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD) performed laboratory testing and, by Report of Analysis No. FCM07‑10‑18‑151 dated October 22, 2007, found live insect larvae and a strong stale odor, concluding the sample was unfit for human consumption.
On January 11, 2016, the CAO‑NCR issued a Resolution finding a violation of Republic Act No. 7394 (the Consumer Act) and ordered (inter alia) an administrative fine of P20,000; an assurance to comply; restitution to Jarra of two bottles of RC Cola (or reimbursement at her option); P5,000 for expenses; and condemnation of the subject product. Nestle moved for reconsideration; the CAO‑NCR denied it on June 8, 2016. Nestle then appealed to the Office of the Secretary of Health.
On April 17, 2017 the Secretary of Health issued a Decision affirming the CAO‑NCR Resolution with modification: the P5,000 award for expenses was deleted and the restitution order was rephrased. Nestle’s motion for reconsideration before the Secretary was denied on September 11, 2017. Nestle then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. SP No. 153068, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by the DOH.
The CA, by Decision dated October 19, 2018, reversed and set aside the DOH Decision and its denial of reconsideration, reasoning that the BFAD report did not establish when or under what conditions the infestation occurred and that the contamination could have arisen outside Nestle’s control (during transit, at the vendor, or after purchase). The...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly find that the Department of Health committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the CAO‑NCR decision?
- Were the findings of the CAO‑NCR and the DOH that the Nestle milk product was adulterated and that Nestle violated RA 7394 supported...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)