ROBINSONS APPLIANCES CORPORATION (ROBINSONS FORUM), PETITIONER, VS. HON. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, HON. UNDERSECRETARY ROWEL S. BARBA AND DTI-FAIR TRADE ENFORCEMENT BUREAU-ENFORCEMENT DIVISION RESPONDENTS.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 264196
- Promulgated: 2024-05-28
- Ponente: LOPEZ, J., J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case Robinsons Appliances Corporation, Robinsons Forum branch, was inspected by the DTI-Fair Trade Enforcement Bureau (DTI-FTEB) on January 29, 2016, to check for compliance with mandatory Philippine National Standards (PNS). The inspection revealed 15 sets of Hanabishi flat irons for sale that bore the Philippine Standard (PS) Mark but lacked the required PS License Number. Consequently, a Formal Charge was filed against Robinsons Appliances for violating Sections 6.1.1 and 6.2.1 of Department Administrative Order No. 2, series of 2007 (DAO No. 2-2007), among other regulations. Robinsons Appliances argued that the products were supplied under a consignment agreement with Fortune Buddies Corporation, the manufacturer, and questioned DTI-FTEB's authority. The DTI-FTEB, however, found Robinsons Appliances liable, imposing a fine of PHP 25,000.00 and ordering the forfeiture of the flat irons. The DTI Secretary affirmed this decision. Robinsons Appliances then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition, ruling that it was the wrong remedy and was filed belatedly. Robinsons Appliances subsequently filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari. ## Issues 1. Did the CA err in dismissing the Petition for Certiorari for being the wrong remedy and for its belated filing? 2. Did the DTI Secretary correctly rule that the 15 Hanabishi flat irons must bear the PS license number? 3. Is Robinsons Appliances, as a retailer, liable for noncompliance with DAO No. 2-2007, DAO No. 4-2008, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)? ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The **CA properly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari for being the wrong remedy and for its belated filing.** The Court reiterated that the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, Robinsons Appliances could have filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court to appeal the DTI Secretary's decision, as DTI decisions are appealable to the CA in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. The Court also clarified that while Republic Act No. 7394 may provide a right to appeal DTI Secretary decisions, the mode of appeal is governed by the Rules of Court. Therefore, the availability of an appeal via Rule 43 rendered the Petition for Certiorari improper. Furthermore, the petition was filed 52 days after receipt of the DTI Secretary's decision, which is beyond the 15-day reglementary period for filing an appeal under Rule 43, thus making it belated. **Issue 2:** The **DTI Secretary correctly ruled that the 15 Hanabishi flat irons must bear the PS license number.** The Court held that products like electronic irons are subject to mandatory certification, requiring the display of identification marks. While Sections 5.1, 6.1.1, and 6.2.1 of **DAO No. 2-2007** and Section 4 of **DAO No. 4-2008** generally require the PS Mark, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of **DAO No. 4-2008** explicitly state that the **PS Certification Mark License Number** shall be indicated at the bottom of the PS Mark. The Court emphasized that administrative regulations, like these IRRs, enacted by administrative agencies to implement and interpret the law, have the force of law and are entitled to respect (**Abakada Gura Party List v. Purisima**). The DTI, with its broad rule-making powers, validly issued these regulations. The validity of the IRR cannot be collaterally attacked in this Rule 45 Petition; it enjoys a presumption of constitutionality and legality. **Issue 3:** **Robinsons Appliances, as a retailer, is liable for noncompliance with DAO No. 2-2007, DAO No. 4-2008, and its IRR.** The Court found Robinsons Appliances' argument that it, as a retailer, should not be held liable, unmeritorious. Section 3.5 of **DAO No. 2-2007** explicitly instructs…
Keywords
Article 166 Republic Act No. 7394, Republic Act No. 7394, Republic Act No. 4109, Rule 43 Rules of Court, Rule 65 Rules of Court, Sections 6.1.1 and 6.2.1 Department Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 2007 (DAO No. 2-2007), Department Administrative Order No. 4, Series of 2008 (DAO No. 4-2008), Section 4, IRR of DAO No. 4-2008, Section 10.3 and 10.4 DAO No. 2-2007, Sections 3.5, 5.1, 6.1.1, 6.2.1 DAO No. 2-2007, Administrative regulations have force of law, Presumption of constitutionality and legality of administrative rules, Product Standard Compliance, Administrative Fines, Retailer Liability, Petition for Review on Certiorari, Certiorari, Grave abuse of discretion, Quasi-judicial agency, Remand