CASE DIGEST: MORAN v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT and PGA CARS

Date Published:

G.R. No. 192957 September 29, 2014. EMMANUEL B. MORAN, JR., (Deceased), substituted by his widow, CONCORDIA V. MORAN, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS REPRESENTED BY THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA and PGA CARS, INC., Respondents.

FACTS:

Petitioner filed a complaint before the Consumer Arbitration Office (CAO) against PGA CARS for the product imperfections of a BMW car which it sold to complainant. CAO rendered a Decision in favor of complainant. Private respondent sought reconsideration but was denied. Thus, the private respondent appealed to the Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), the quasi-judicial agency designated by Article 165 of RA 7394 to entertain appeals from the adverse decisions and orders of the CAO. However, in a Resolution dated April 28, 2006, the DTI Secretary dismissed the appeal of the private respondent who then filed an appeal with the herein public respondent OP.

The OP granted the appeal, reversed the DTI Secretary’s Resolution, and dismissed the complaint. The OP ruled that the DTI erred in holding the private respondent liable for product defects which issue was never raised by the complainant and because the private respondent was not the manufacturer, builder, producer or importer of the subject BMW car but only its seller. Complainant filed a petition for certiorari with the CA but the latter denied the petition.

ISSUE: 

Is the CA correct in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that petitioner resorted to a wrong mode of appeal?

RULING: 

No, under the Consumer Act (RA 7394), the DTI has the authority and the mandate to act upon complaints filed by consumers pursuant to the State policy of protecting the consumer against deceptive, unfair, and unconscionable sales, acts or practices. Said law provided for an arbitration procedure whereby consumer complaints are heard and investigated by consumer arbitration officers whose decisions are appealable to the DTI Secretary.

In this case, a special law, RA 7394, likewise expressly provided for immediate judicial relief from decisions of the DTI Secretary by filing a petition for certiorari with the "proper court." Hence, private respondent should have elevated the case directly to the CA through a petition for certiorari.