Case Digest (G.R. No. 240764)
Facts:
Venus Commercial Co., Inc. v. The Department of Health and the Food and Drug Administration, G.R. No. 240764, November 18, 2021, First Division, Lazaro-Javier, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Venus Commercial Co., Inc. manufactured Artex Fine Water Colors. On April 7, 2014, the non‑profit EcoWaste Coalition sent a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reporting alleged high lead content in that product and that it lacked FDA approval. Acting on that information, the FDA bought two market samples and had them chemically analyzed; the results allegedly showed lead levels exceeding FDA tolerable limits.
On May 28, 2014 the FDA Acting Director‑General issued FDA Personnel Order No. 2014‑220, authorizing Regional Field Office‑NCR Food and Drug Regulation Officers to enter Venus’s Malabon premises, inspect, seize violative Artex watercolors, and padlock the establishment if manufacturing/distributing the product was confirmed. FDA operatives attempted implementation on May 29, 2014; they were denied entry but served Venus a Notice of Violation Report and warned they would return.
On June 4, 2014 Venus filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with an application for preliminary injunction/TRO (SCA 14‑010‑MN) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 74, Malabon City. Venus challenged the constitutionality of several statutory and regulatory provisions—principally Sections 10(ff), 12(a), and 30(4) of R.A. No. 3720 as amended by R.A. No. 9711, and Article III, Section 2(b)(5) of the FDA IRR (Department Circular 2011‑0101)—and sought to enjoin enforcement of FDA Personnel Order No. 2014‑220 on due process and warrant/illegal search and seizure grounds.
The trial court initially denied the TRO but, after hearing testimony (Venus’s operations manager and FDA’s biochemist), issued an order on July 25, 2014 granting a writ of preliminary injunction; it later made the injunction permanent in a Decision dated September 23, 2015, holding FDA Personnel Order No. 2014‑220 void insofar as it ordered seizure and padlocking for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion and in violation of Venus’s right to due process. The trial court expressly avoided ruling on the constitutionality of the statutory provisions.
Respondents (DOH and FDA, through the Office of the Solicitor General) appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated February 23, 2018 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 144844), reversed the RTC, dissolved the writ of permanent injunction, and held that (a) Sections 12(a) and 30(4) of R.A. No. 3720 as amended and the cited IRR provision were valid exercises of police power and did not violate the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures; (b) Section 10(ff) did not constitute an undue delegation of legislative power; and (c) the Director‑General’s authority to padlock an establishment was necessarily implied. The CA denied Venus’s motion for reconsideration on July 11, 2018.
Venus filed a petition for review ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Do Sections 12(a) and 30(4) of R.A. No. 3720, as amended by R.A. No. 9711, and Section 2(b) paragraph (5), Article III of Department Circular No. 2011‑0101 violate the constitutional proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures (Art. III, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution)?
- Does Section 10(ff) of R.A. No. 3720, as amended, constitute an invalid delegation of legislative power?
- Does FDA Personnel Order No. 2014‑220 violate Venus’s right to due process (procedural and substanti...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)