Case Digest (G.R. No. 201073)
Facts:
In Venus Commercial Co., Inc. v. Department of Health and Food and Drug Administration (G.R. No. 240764, November 18, 2021), Venus Commercial Co., Inc. (Venus) manufactured the unregistered Artex Fine Water Colors. On April 7, 2014, EcoWaste Coalition alerted the FDA to dangerously high lead levels in those watercolors. The FDA purchased two market samples on May 2014, laboratory-tested them, and confirmed excessive lead content well above permissible limits. On May 28, 2014, the Acting Director-General of the FDA issued FDA Personnel Order No. 2014-220, authorizing regional officers to enter Venus’s Malabon City premises, inspect, seize the violative watercolors, and padlock the facility pending hearing. When FDA agents attempted enforcement on May 29, 2014, they were denied entry and left a Notice of Violation. Venus thereupon filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with an application for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction (SCA 14-010-MN)Case Digest (G.R. No. 201073)
Facts:
- Statutory and Regulatory Framework
- Republic Act No. 9711 (FDA Act of 2009)
- Renames Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD) to Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
- Declares State policy to protect the right to health and maintain an effective health-products regulatory system
- Amends RA 3720 to create FDA under DOH with powers including:
- Issuance of cease-and-desist orders (Sec. 4(j))
- Definition of “health products” (Sec. 10(ff))
- Additional powers of Director-General including seizure and custody of violative products pending hearing (Sec. 30(4))
- Penalizes prohibited acts and authorizes seizure without court order when Director-General has reasonable cause (Sec. 12(a))
- Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) – DOH Department Circular 2011-0101
- Details duties and quasi-judicial powers of the Director-General (Art. III, Sec. 2(b)(5))
- Provides procedures for temporary/preventive measures, service of orders, notice and hearing
- Factual and Procedural Background
- FDA Investigation of Artex Fine Water Colors
- April 7, 2014 letter from EcoWaste Coalition alleged high lead content
- FDA purchased and tested samples, confirmed lead levels exceeding limits
- FDA Personnel Order No. 2014-220 (May 28, 2014) authorized RFO-NCR officers to inspect, seize products, and padlock Venus’s establishment
- Trial Court Proceedings (RTC Malabon City, SCA 14-010-MN)
- Venus Commercial Co., Inc. filed petition for certiorari, prohibition, and preliminary injunction
- Challenged constitutionality of Sec. 30(4) and Sec. 10(ff) of RA 3720 as amended, and IRR provisions
- Argues violation of right against unreasonable searches and seizures and due process
- Trial court denied TRO but granted preliminary injunction (July 25, 2014) and made it permanent (Sept. 23, 2015), voiding FDA Order No. 2014-220 for lack of due process
- Court of Appeals Proceedings (CA-G.R. SP No. 144844)
- Respondents appealed, defended FDA’s statutory authority and administrative search powers
- CA Decision (Feb. 23, 2018) reversed trial court, dissolved injunction, upheld constitutionality of Secs. 30(4) and 10(ff), IRR seizure powers, and implied padlocking authority
- Venus’s motion for reconsideration denied (July 11, 2018)
- Present Petition to the Supreme Court
- Venus seeks reversal of CA dispositions, declaration of unconstitutionality of Secs. 30(4), 10(ff), 12(a), IRR Art. III, Sec. 2(b)(5), and invalidation of FDA Order No. 2014-220
Issues:
- Do Sections 12(a) and 30(4) of RA 3720, as amended by RA 9711, and Section 2(b)(5), Article III of the IRR violate the constitutional proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures?
- Does Section 10(ff) of RA 3720, as amended, constitute an invalid delegation of legislative power?
- Does FDA Personnel Order No. 2014-220 violate Venus’s rights to due process and against self-incrimination?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)