Title
Supreme Court
Toyota Motors Philippines Corp. vs. Aguilar
Case
G.R. No. 257084
Decision Date
Nov 15, 2021
Consumer complaint against Toyota for defective vehicle; DTI ruled in favor of buyer, upheld by courts, holding Toyota and dealer solidarily liable under Consumer Act for unresolved defects.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 257084)

Purchase and Initial Complaints

Aguilar purchased a Toyota Wigo with a conduction sticker from TFI on an installment basis. Shortly after the purchase, she encountered multiple issues with the vehicle, including a malfunctioning steering wheel and noises emanating from the brake and accelerator pads. Despite numerous repairs conducted by TFI, the issues persisted, prompting Aguilar to file a complaint with the DTI for product imperfections under the Consumer Act.

DTI Adjudication Division's Decision

On October 25, 2016, the DTI Adjudication Division ruled in favor of Aguilar, ordering TMP to replace the defective vehicle and pay an administrative fine of ₱240,000. The Division noted that TMP failed to present substantial evidence to counter Aguilar's claims and highlighted the potential safety risks associated with the vehicle's unresolved imperfections. Though Aguilar sought a refund, the Division concluded that a replacement was more appropriate due to the vehicle's warranty.

DTI Secretary's Ruling

On February 24, 2018, the DTI Secretary upheld the decision of the Adjudication Division, asserting that TMP was liable for the express imperfections due to the delayed repairs that exceeded thirty days. The Secretary also noted that TFI exhibited bad faith by allowing the installation of an aftermarket alarm system, which could potentially harm the vehicle, without informing Aguilar.

Court of Appeals' Decision

The Court of Appeals dismissed TMP’s appeal, affirming the findings of the DTI and rejecting the claim that TMP was denied due process. The CA emphasized that technical rules in administrative proceedings are more flexible, and both parties had opportunities to present their cases during mediation. Furthermore, it reaffirmed the liability of TMP and TFI under Article 100(a) of the Consumer Act due to the persistent defects in the vehicle.

Arguments Presented by TMP

In the petition for certiorari, TMP argued that it was denied due process by the DTI when its position paper was not considered before the ruling. TMP also claimed that the steering issue was exacerbated by Aguilar’s installation of an unauthorized alarm syst

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.