Case Digest (G.R. No. 203353)
Facts:
Universal Robina Corporation v. Department of Trade and Industry, G.R. No. 203353, February 14, 2023, Supreme Court En Banc, Leonen, SAJ., writing for the Court.Petitioner Universal Robina Corporation (URC) manufactures flour; respondents are the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), the DTI Secretary, Undersecretary Zenaida C. Maglaya (in her official capacity), and Victorio Mario A. Dimagiba (in his capacity as Director of the DTI Bureau of Trade Regulation and Consumer Protection (BTRCP)). On May 25, 2010 Director Dimagiba wrote URC (and other millers) questioning why ex‑mill flour prices had not declined despite decreases in wheat prices, freight costs, foreign‑exchange movements and a zero tariff; he instructed URC to reduce its ex‑mill price to P630–P680 per bag.
Dimagiba thereafter filed profiteering complaints before the DTI against URC and other millers; the Complaint‑Affidavit alleged URC’s price at P770–P790 per bag constituted profiteering under Republic Act No. 7581 (the Price Act). On June 15, 2010 an adjudication officer of the DTI issued a Preliminary Order temporarily reducing selling prices while the case was pending; the Preliminary Order was later lifted after industry statements and some price reductions. The Complaint against the millers was later dismissed for lack of a certification against forum shopping. Separately, the DTI again contacted URC (inviting discussion and requesting comment on a BTRCP price evaluation).
In response URC filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief in the Regional Trial Court (Pasig City, Branch 161) seeking declarations that: (1) Section 5(2) of the Price Act (the profiteering provision) is void for vagueness; (2) Executive Order No. 913 and Rule IX, Section 5 of DTI Administrative Order No. 07 are invalid exercises of quasi‑legislative power and violate due process; and (3) issuances, acts and proceedings based on those laws/issuances are void. After pleadings and memoranda, the RTC issued a Decision (April 3, 2012) dismissing the petition for lack of a justiciable controversy and as prematurely filed; URC’s motion for reconsideration was denied (Aug. 28, 2012).
URC then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court. The DTI (through the Solicitor General) filed a Comment; the parties later submitted memoranda at the Court’s direction. URC argued there was an actual legal controversy despite the DTI complaint’s dismissal on technical grounds and alternatively urged exceptions to mootness; it pressed both facial and as‑applied vagueness attacks on Section 5(2) and argued that EO 913 and DTI AO No. 7 represe...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is a petition for declaratory relief under Rule 63 a proper remedy here — i.e., was there a justiciable controversy between URC and the DTI permitting judicial review?
- Is Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 7581 (the Price Act) — defining and penalizing “profiteering” as “sale or offering for sale of any basic necessity or prime commodity at a price grossly in excess of its tr...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)