Case Summary (G.R. No. 246439)
Petition before the DTI-FTEB
In July 2015, Biraogo filed a consumer complaint (FTEB ADM Case No. CC17-005) against four battery importers and distributors, including PPC Asia Corporation. He alleged that his motorcycle’s lead-acid batteries—branded 3K, Nagoya, Quantum, and GS Tropical—failed prematurely and did not meet PNS 06:1987 standards. PABMA engaged PBI to test 24 battery samples; many failed the reserve capacity test. Biraogo sought a confirmatory test, a cease-and-desist order, fines, and cancellation of the respondents’ licenses for alleged concealment and false representation under RA 7394.
DTI-FTEB Decision
By Decision dated February 14, 2017, the Fair Trade Enforcement Bureau dismissed the complaint for lack of legal standing and cause of action. It held that Biraogo’s sales receipts did not conclusively show he purchased the tested batteries and gave greater weight to existing Bureau of Philippine Standards certifications in favor of the importers.
DTI Ruling on Appeal
On May 25, 2018, Undersecretary Barba reversed the FTEB dismissal and ordered immediate confirmatory testing of the branded batteries. He dispensed with technical rules on standing and found Biraogo’s sales receipts sufficient to establish consumer prejudice under RA 7394.
Court of Appeals Ruling
PPC Asia Corporation petitioned for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 157378). On October 18, 2018 and March 12, 2019, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for procedural deficiencies:
1. Failure to attach the original complaint, position paper, and appeal memorandum;
2. Failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the DTI ruling;
3. Unauthorized signing of the verification and certification against forum-shopping.
Issues Presented
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the certiorari petition on grounds of:
a) non-submission of required attachments;
b) absence of a motion for reconsideration;
c) lack of counsel’s authority to sign verification.
2. Whether PPC’s right to due process was violated when the DTI ordered confirmatory testing of its battery brands.
Analysis on Motion for Reconsideration
The Supreme Court agreed that under DTI’s Simplified and Uniform Rules (Rule XIV, Section 1(a)), no motion for reconsideration lies in consumer cases under RA 7394. Requiring PPC to file a prohibited motion before seeking certiorari would be “devoid of legal basis.” The Court cited Chua v. COMELEC: “a prohibited pleading does not produce any legal effect and may be deemed not filed.”
Analysis on Verification Requirements and Attachments
Although PPC submitted the Secretary’s Certificate authorizing its counsel, it failed twice to attach essential documents (complaint, position paper, appeal memorandum). Under Rule 46, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, omission of “documents which should accompany the petition” warrants dismissal. Citing Atillo v. Bombay, the Court held that discretion in selecting attachments is not unbridled: supporting records must allow an “intelligent decision” on prima facie merit. PPC’s “obstinate refusal” to comply demonstrated disrespect for proce
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 246439)
Antecedents
- On July 22, 2015, Louis “Barok” Biraogo filed a consumer complaint with the DTI-Fair Trade Enforcement Bureau (FTEB) entitled Louis “Barok” Biraogo v. Pollux Distributors, Inc., TPL Industrial Sales Corporation, Power Point Battery Manufacturing Corporation and PPC Asia Corporation (FTEB ADM Case No. CC17-005).
- He impleaded as respondents four importers/distributors of lead-acid motorcycle batteries:
- PPC Asia Corporation (3K brand)
- Pollux Distributors, Inc. (Nagoya and Quantum brands)
- TPL Industrial Sales Corporation (Quantum and Panasonic brands)
- Power Point Battery Manufacturing Corporation (GS Tropical brand)
- Biraogo alleged that in 2013 he had to replace four defective batteries within three months of use.
- He asked the Philippine Association of Battery Manufacturers (PABMA) to verify brand compliance with PNS 06:1987.
- The Philippine Batteries, Inc. (PBI) tested 24 samples and found many failed the reserve capacity test, concluding the branded batteries were substandard.
- Biraogo prayed for:
- Confirmatory tests on the subject batteries
- Cease and desist order against further importation, distribution, and sale
- Imposition of fines on importers
- Cancellation of their licenses/permits for violating Sections 50 and 52 of RA 7394 (Consumer Act)
DTI-FTEB Ruling
- By Decision dated February 14, 2017, the DTI-FTEB dismissed the complaint for lack of legal standing and cause of action.
- It held that Biraogo’s sales receipts did not prove he purchased the tested batteries.
- It ruled that prior certifications by the Bureau of Philippine Standards (BPS) in favor of importers prevailed over the PBI test results.
- It concluded respondents could not be found guilty of concealment or false representation.
DTI Ruling on Appeal
- By Decision dated May 25, 2018 (DTI Appeal Case No. 2017-50), Undersecretary Rowel S. Barba reversed the FTEB decision.
- The DTI ordered immediate official testing of the branded batteries to resolve doubts on their quality.
- It dispensed with technical standing rules, finding Biraogo’s sales receipts sufficient to show consumer prejudice.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- PPC Asia Corporation filed a petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No.