Case Digest (G.R. No. 202943)
Facts:
The Department of Health, represented by Secretary Enrique T. Ona, and the Food and Drug Administration (formerly the Bureau of Food and Drugs), represented by Assistant Secretary Nicolas B. Lutero III, Officer-In-Charge, Petitioner, vs. Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing, Inc., G.R. No. 202943, March 25, 2015, Supreme Court First Division, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.On November 19, 2008, Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing, Inc. (PMPMI), through advertising agency PCN Promopro, Inc., applied to the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD, now Food and Drug Administration (FDA)) for a sales promotion permit under Article 116 of Republic Act No. 7394 (the Consumer Act) for its “Gear Up Promo.” The application included mechanics, promotional materials and fees; more than fifteen days passed without formal action and PMPMI learned verbally of a Department of Health (DOH) memorandum purportedly prohibiting tobacco promotional activities. On January 8, 2009 PCN formally requested BFAD to place the lack of action on record.
Separately, on November 28, 2008 PMPMI, through Arc Worldwide Philippines Co., filed another permit application for the “Golden Stick Promo,” which BFAD refused to accept pursuant to a directive that tobacco companies’ promotion permit applications would no longer be accepted; BFAD advised the agency to await formal notice. By letter dated January 5, 2009, BFAD Director Leticia Gutierrez denied the Gear Up application, citing instructions that, based on Republic Act No. 9211 (the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003), promotions, advertisements and sponsorships of tobacco products were prohibited as of July 1, 2008.
On January 19, 2009 PMPMI administratively appealed to DOH Secretary Francisco T. Duque III arguing that RA 9211 only restricts, and does not ban, promotion; that prior BFAD approvals vested a right to permits; and that denial violated due process and property rights. In a Consolidated Decision dated April 30, 2009, Secretary Duque denied PMPMI’s appeal and affirmed BFAD’s denials, ruling that issuance of promotional permits was discretionary (not ministerial), prior approvals did not create vested rights, and that RA 9211 intended to ban advertisements, promotions and sponsorships; the DOH also cited the country’s obligations under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
PMPMI filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA) (CA‑G.R. SP No. 109493). In a Decision dated August 26, 2011, the CA granted the petition, finding that RA 9211 distinguishes promotion from advertising and sponsorship and therefore promotion remained merely restricted (not banned); the CA also held that Section 29 of RA 9211 created an Inter‑Agency Committee‑Tobacco (IAC‑Tobacco) with the exclusive power to administer and implement RA 9211 and that Section 39 impliedly repealed the DOH’s authority under RA 7394 — hence BFAD/DOH had no authority to deny PMPMI’s permit applications. The DOH’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in a Resol...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in finding that the Department of Health’s authority under Article 116 in relation to Article 109 of RA 7394 to regulate tobacco sales promotions was impliedly repealed by RA 9211 through the creation of the Inter‑Agency Committee‑Tobacco (IAC‑Tobacco) with exclusive authority to administer and implement RA 9211?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the DOH for construing RA 9211 as having completely pr...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)