Abba Motors, Inc. v. Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 237607. April 23, 2018.]

ABBA MOTORS, INC., petitioner, vs.THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY [THE APPEALS COMMITTEE] AND JEFFREY ORTALIZ, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated23 April 2018which reads as follows: ICHDca

"G.R. No. 237607 (Abba Motors, Inc. v. The Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry [The Appeals Committee] and Jeffrey Ortaliz)

After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the June 29, 2017 Decision 1 and February 19, 2018 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 140025 for failure of petitioner Abba Motors, Inc. (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding its solidary liability with Columbian Autocars, Inc. and KIA Motor Sales Philippines to respondent Jeffrey Ortaliz (respondent) for the remaining value of the vehicle (a KIA Carnival RS Sedona M/T Van) in the sum of P506,464.29, with 6% interest per annum, from finality of the said Decision, until full payment. 3

As correctly ruled by the CA, respondent had sufficiently established that the subject vehicle suffered mechanical defects prior to their maintenance agreement, and exhibited complications a year after its purchase. Said flaws were deemed as product imperfections that rendered the said vehicle inadequate for its designed use or consumption. As such, petitioner, as authorized dealer of the vehicle bought by respondent, is solidarily liable with KIA Motor Sales Philippines and Columbian Autocars, Inc. pursuant to Article 100 4 of Republic Act No. (RA) 7394, 5 otherwise known as the "Consumer Act of the Philippines," in relation to Section 2, 6 Rule III, Chapter V of Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) Administrative Order No. 2, series of 1993 (Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7394).

It is settled that by reason of the special knowledge and expertise of the DTI over matters falling under its jurisdiction, it is in a better position to pass judgment on the issues; and its findings of fact in that regard, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally accorded respect, if not finality, by this Court, 7 as in this case.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 10-26. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla concurring.

2.Id. at 84-85.

3. See Autozentrum Alabang, Inc. v. Bernardo, Jr., G.R. No. 214122, June 8, 2016, 793 SCRA 84, 101.

4. Article 100. Liability for Product and Service Imperfection. — The suppliers of durable or nondurable consumer products are jointly liable for imperfections in quality that render the products unfit or inadequate for consumption for which they are designed or decrease their value, and for those resulting from inconsistency with the information provided on the container, packaging, labels or publicity messages/advertisement, with due regard to the variations resulting from their nature, the consumer being able to demand replacement to the imperfect parts.

   If the imperfection is not corrected within thirty (30) days, the consumer may alternatively demand at his option:

   a) the replacement of the product by another of the same kind, in a perfect state of use;

   b) the immediate reimbursement of the amount paid, with monetary updating, without prejudice to any losses and damages;

   c) a proportionate price reduction.

xxx xxx xxx

5. Entitled "THE CONSUMER ACT OF THE PHILIPPINES"; approved on April 13, 1992.

6. Sec. 2. When is There Product Imperfection. — With due regard to variations resulting from their nature, the following shall constitute product imperfection:

   2.1. Those that render the products unfit or inadequate for the purpose, use or consumption for which they are designed or intended;

   2.2. Those that shall jeopardize the quality and characteristics of the product resulting to a decrease in its value.

xxx xxx xxx

7.Autozentrum Alabang, Inc. v. Bernardo, Jr., G.R. No. 214122, June 8, 2016, 793 SCRA 84, 98; citation omitted.