Republic of the Philippines
CAVITE STATE UNIVERSITY
Don Severino De las Alas Campus
Indang, Cavite
___________________________________________________________________________________
TOUR 80: Legal Aspects in Tourism and Hospitality
Name: Subiate, Jane Cyrine P. Course/Year/Section: BSTM 3-1
Professor/Instructor: Sir. Rowel C. Alcantara Date: April 12, 2024
ACTIVITY # 2
Directions:
In reference to the Republic Act No. 7394 or The Consumer Act of the Philippines, list down three
(3) examples of consumer-related cases under each implementing agencies stated in the said law. Give
a brief description of the case.
Department of Health
(food, products, drugs, cosmetics, substances)
Name of Entitles Involved Brief Description of the Case
1. THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY petitioners the Department of Health (DOH) and
ENRIQUE T. ONA, AND THE FOOD the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), then
DRUG ADMINISTRATION known as the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD),
PEPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT for denying respondent Philip Morris Philippines
SECRETARY OF HEALTH NICOAS B. Manufacturing, Inc.’s (PMPMI) permit applications
LUTERO Ii, OFFICER IN CHARGE, for its tobacco sales promotions
PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIP MORRIS On November 19, 2008, PMPMI, through the
PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING INC., advertising agency PCN Promo pro, Inc. (PCN),
RESPONDENT by virtue of Article 1164 of Republic Act No. (RA)
7394 or the “Consumer Act of the Philippines,”
applied for a sales promotion permit before the
BFAD, now the FDA, for its Gear Up Promotional
Activity (Gear Up Promo).6 The application
included the mechanics for the promotional
activity, as well as relevant materials and fees.
References:
https://chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015marchdecisions.php?
id=255
2. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari] filed
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the
PETITIONER, VS. NESTLE Decision dated October 19, 2018 and the
PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT. Resolution dated January 17, 2019 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-GR. SP No. 153068, which
reversed and set aside the Decision dated April
17, 2017 and the Resolution dated September 11,
2017 of the Department of Health (DOH).
On October 16, 2007, Mymanette M. Jarra (Jarra)
bought one (1) Nestle Bear Brand Powdered
Filled Milk, 150 grams, from Joy Store located
along West Riverside, San Francisco Del Monte,
Quezon City. When Jarra opened the foil pack,
she noticed objects inside it, which appeared to
be larvae, and the powder therein looked
yellowish and lumpy. On the following day, Jarra
filed a complaint before the DOH Consumer
Arbitration Office of the National Capital Regional
Office (CAO-NCR). During the conciliation
proceedings, the Acting Consumer Arbitration
Officer requested the Bureau of Food and Drugs
(BFAD) for a laboratory test on the subject
product.
On January 11, 2016, the CAO-NCR issued a
Resolution] in favor of Jarra and found that the
substantial evidence on record proved that there
is clear violation of Republic Act No. (RA) 7394,
otherwise known as the Consumer Act of the
Philippines, which prohibits the manufacture,
importation, exportation, sale, offering for sale,
distribution or transfer of any food, drug, devise or
cosmetics that is adulterated.
References:
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66698
3. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (DOH), The Court are three petitions docketed as G.R.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF Nos. 212894, 213820, and 213889 all filed by the
HEALTH; AND THE SECRETARY OF Department of Health (DOH), represented by the
HEALTH, AS HEAD OF THE PROCURING Secretary of Health, then Secretary Enrique T.
ENTITY, PETITIONERS, VS. HON.
BONIFACIO S. PASCUA, IN HIS CAPACITY Ona, and the Secretary of Health, as Head of the
AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH Procuring Entity (collectively, petitioners) against
56, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN MAKATI Hon. Bonifacio S. Pascua (respondent judge), in
CITY; AND J.D. LEGASPI CONSTRUCTION, his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 56,
RESPONDENTS. Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City and J.D.
Legaspi Construction (respondent JDLC).
The controversy arose from the bidding of the
infrastructure project for Dr. Jose Fabella
Memorial Hospital (Fabella Hospital). The
modernization project has become imperative
since the land it occupied is owned by Home
Guaranty Corporation, and Fabella Hospital has
been required to transfer to a new site.
On February 14, 2013, Architect Maria Rebecca
M. Peñafiel of the National Center for Health
Facility Development (NCHFD) of the DOH
submitted the approved terms of reference of
Phase 1 of the Project to the Central Office Bids
and Awards Committee (COBAC) Secretariat, Dr.
Ma. Theresa G. Vera. On April 6, 2013, the
Invitation to Bid (ITB) for Phase 1 was posted on
the Philippine Government Electronic
Procurement System (PhilGEPS). On June 4,
2013, the ITB was published in two national
newspapers, the Philippine Star and the
Philippine Daily Inquirer, and posted in
conspicuous places within the premises of the
DOH. On June 11, 2013, the pre-bid conference
was conducted
References:
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/
1/66156
Department of Agriculture
(agriculture-related products)
Name of Entitles Involved Brief Description of the Case
1. THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND The House Committee on Trade and Industry has
INDUSTRY HAS APPROVED THE approved the consolidation of bills creating “Timbangan
CONSOLIDATION OF BILLS CREATING ng Bayan” Centers in all markets across the
“TIMBANGAN NG BAYAN” CENTERS IN country.The bill will consolidate House Bills 3255,
ALL MARKETS ACROSS THE COUNTRY 4199, 4552 and 5060 that would establish the said
centers by amending Chapter 2 of the Republic
Act 7394 or “The Consumer Act of the Philippines.
The measure will require local government units to
establish a Timbangan ng Bayan Center in all public,
private, big and small markets nationwide, where
weighing scales will be installed and will be accessible
to anyone who wants to verify the accuracy of the
quantity and weight of the products purchased.
The local treasurer will be tasked to ensure that
these are always accurate.The measure also seeks
to penalize any person who tampers, vandalizes or
destroys any Timbangan ng Bayan. It also aims to
increase the penalties imposed by the Consumer Act
on any person who fraudulently alters any
References:
https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/03/02/news/top-stories/
house-panel-approves-timbangan-ng-bayan/698651
2. CANNABIS USE IN CONSUMER PRODUCTS Covered by the FDA ban are marijuana from the
BANNED FOOD AND DRUG species of the plant Cannabis sativa L, including but
ADMINISTRATION (FDA) AND THE not limited to Cannabis americana, hashish, bhang,
PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT guaza, churrus and ganjab or any of its other names.
AGENCY(PDEA) HAVE BANNED THE USE While lawmakers are debating the legalization of
OF MARIJUANA IN CONSUMER PRODUCTS medical marijuana, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) have banned the use
of marijuana in consumer products. In a joint advisory
yesterday, the FDA and PDEA said the use of
“hempseed oil or their varieties and derivatives from
cannabis or marijuana in consumer products” is
prohibited in the country to protect the public from the
harmful effects of dangerous drugs. Hempseed oil
products or their varieties and derivatives from
cannabis or marijuana must be surrendered to
FDA or PDEA “without prejudice to the filing of
any administrative/criminal sanctions under Republic
Act 7394,” the joint advisory said.
References:
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/09/11/1498770/
cannabis-use-consumer-products-banned
3. PHILRICE ASKS LGUS TO ENFORCE The Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) is
PROPER RICE LABELING urging local government units (LGUs) to enforce
proper and truthful labeling in rice to enable
consumers to differentiate locally-produced rice from
imported ones. She also said that retailer compliance
with the Philippine National Standards on rice labeling
and price tagging is voluntary. At present, Mataia said
some traders still include the rice brands while some
allegedly mix imported and local rice or different rice
grades to command higher prices, which are prohibited
under Republic Act 7394 or the Consumer Act of the
Philippines.
References:
https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1128251
Department of Trade and Industry
(consumer products)
Name of Entitles Involved Brief Description of the Case
1. EMMANUEL B. MORAN, JR. (DECEASED), G.R. No. 192957 On February 2, 2004, the late
SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIDOW, Emmanuel B. Moran, Jr. filed with the Consumer
CONCORDIA VS. MORAN, PETITIONER VS. Arbitration Office (CAO) a verified complaint against
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE private respondent PGA Cars, Inc. pursuant tothe
PHILIPPINES, AS REPRESENTED BY THE relevant provisions of Republic Act No. 7394 (RA
HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 7394), otherwise known as the Consumer Act of
EDUARDO R. ERMITA AND PGA CARS, the Philippines. Docketed as DTI Administrative
INC., RESPONDENTS Case No. 04-17, the complaint alleged that the
private respondent should be held liable for the product
imperfections of a BMW car which it sold to
complainant. On September 23, 2005, the CAO
rendered a Decision5 in favor of complainant and
ordered the private respondent to refund the purchase
price of the BMW car in addition to the payment of
costs of litigation and administrative fines
References;
https://chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014septemberdecisions.php?
id=749
The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
2. DTI- BICOL RAPS VS 7 STORES VIOLATING provincial office in Albay has recently filed formal
PRICE TAG RULE charges against seven erring stores in Albay, a top
official of the agency said Friday. The charges were
issued after the stores were caught selling products
with no "price tag", violating Article 81 or the "Price
Tag Requirement" of Republic Act (RA) 7394,
otherwise known as the Consumer Act of Philippines.
The DTI hearing officer shall summon these erring
store owners for a pre-determination conference. As
the store owner admits his/her violation, he/she
shall be asked to pay for the administrative fine,
(PHP500) to PHP150,000
References;
https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1027123
3. AUTOZENTRUM ALABANG, INC., G.R. No. 214122, June 08, 2016 The respondents
PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES MIAMAR A. bought a 2008 BMW 320i sports car, in the
BERNARDO AND GENARO F. BERNARDO, amount of P2,990,000, from petitioner Autozentrum
JR., DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND Alabang, Inc a domestic corporation and authorized
INDUSTRY, ASIAN CARMAKERS dealer of BMW vehicles. Six days after the car's
CORPORATION, AND BAYERISHE release, Spouses Bernardo returned the car to BMW
MOTOREN WERKE (BMW) A.G., Autohaus due to the malfunctioning of the electric
RESPONDENTS warning system and door lock system. Spouses
Bernardo sent letters to Autozentrum, demanding for
the replacement of the car or the refund of their
payment. Filed a complaint for refund or
replacement of the car and damages with the DTI
against respondents Autozentrum, ACC, and
Bayerishe Motoren Werke (BMW) A.G. for violation
of Article 50(b) and (c), in relation to Article 97, of
the Consumer Act of the Philippines or Republic Act
No. (RA) 7394.
Spouses Bernardo allege that Autozentrum violated
Article 50(b) and (c), in relation to Article 97, of RA
7394, when it sold to them a defective and used car,
instead of a brand new one. Autozentrum,
however, claims that Spouses Bernardo failed to
prove the elements of deceit or misrepresentation
under Article 50, and injury under Article 97.
References;
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/
1/62003
