Moran vs. Office of the President

A DTI Secretary's decision under Republic Act No. 7394 becomes final after fifteen days unless challenged by petition for certiorari with the proper court, and may not be appealed to the Office of the President where such special law provides a different mode of appeal. Because Article 166 expressly prescribed immediate judicial relief, resort to the Office of the President was without jurisdiction, its resulting decision was void, and certiorari before the Court of Appeals was the proper remedy to correct that jurisdictional error.

Emmanuel B. Moran, Jr. was a consumer-buyer and PGA Cars, Inc. was the seller-dealer of the BMW vehicle subject to a consumer complaint. Republic Act No. 7394 declares State policy to protect consumers against deceptive, unfair and unconscionable sales acts or practices and creates an arbitration procedure whereby consumer arbitration officers hear complaints with appeal to the DTI Secretary concerned. Article 166 thereof provides that the Secretary shall decide the appeal within thirty days and the decision becomes final after fifteen days unless a petition for certiorari is filed with the proper court.

On February 2, 2004, the late Emmanuel B. Moran, Jr. filed with the Consumer Arbitration Office a verified complaint against PGA Cars, Inc. pursuant to Republic Act No. 7394, docketed as DTI Administrative Case No. 04-17. The complaint alleged that PGA Cars should be held liable for the product imperfections of a BMW car which it sold to him.

On September 23, 2005, the Consumer Arbitration Office rendered a decision in favor of the complainant, finding respondent guilty of violation of the cited provisions and ordering refund of the purchase price of the subject vehicle in the amount of ₱3,375,000, payment of ₱5,000 as costs of litigation, and payment of a ₱10,000 administrative fine. On October 19, 2005, PGA Cars sought reconsideration, which the Consumer Arbitration Office denied in an Order dated January 19, 2006. PGA Cars then appealed to the Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry, the quasi-judicial agency designated by Article 165 of RA 7394 to entertain appeals from adverse decisions of the Consumer Arbitration Office, but in a Resolution dated April 28, 2006 the DTI Secretary dismissed the appeal.

PGA Cars filed an appeal with the Office of the President. On April 3, 2007, the Office of the President granted the appeal, reversed the DTI Secretary's Resolution, and dismissed the complaint. The Office of the President ruled that the DTI erred in holding PGA Cars liable for product defects which issue was never raised by complainant and because PGA Cars was not the manufacturer, builder, producer or importer of the BMW car but only its seller, such that none of the circumstances under Article 98 of RA 7394 were present. It further ruled that PGA Cars could not be held liable for product imperfections because the product was never proven unfit or inadequate under conditions laid down by law, there was no inconsistency in information in the container or product advertisements or messages, and complainant first complained only after nearly ten months from purchase and after the car had been driven 12,518 kilometers, without the vehicle having broken down before then and without complainant pointing to any specific defective part.

Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration raising lack of jurisdiction of the Office of the President, which was denied in an Order dated October 22, 2008, copy of which complainant received on November 25, 2008. On January 23, 2009, complainant filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals alleging lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Office of the President to rule on RA 7394 cases. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for being a wrong mode of appeal and for failure to state material dates, and denied reconsideration on June 25, 2010. After Moran, Jr. died on May 17, 2010, his widow Concordia V. Moran pursued the present recourse.

• Propriety of Certiorari to Correct Jurisdictional Error: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in denying the petition for certiorari which alleged error of jurisdiction on the part of the OP, maintaining that where error of jurisdiction is alleged, the proper remedy is a petition for certiorari with the CA because appeal is not available to correct lack of jurisdiction, and even though appeal is available it is not considered the plain, speedy and adequate legal remedy.
• Lack of OP Appellate Jurisdiction Under Article 166: Petitioner maintained that the OP lacked appellate jurisdiction to review DTI decisions in RA 7394 cases based on Article 166 thereof, which expressly confers appellate jurisdiction to review such DTI decisions to the proper court through a petition for certiorari, such that the OP cannot be deemed the proper court within the purview of Article 166.

• Improper Remedy — Availability of Appeal: Private respondent argued that the CA was correct in denying the petition for certiorari since this was an improper remedy in view of the availability of an appeal from the OP, a position echoed by the public respondent through the Office of the Solicitor General which claimed that availability of appeal precluded the extraordinary remedy of certiorari and that appeal takes precedence over certiorari even with an allegation of error of jurisdiction as long as appeal was at petitioner's disposal.
• OP Jurisdiction Via Control Power and Exhaustion: Private respondent confirmed the appellate jurisdiction of the OP over the DTI based on the constitutional power of control of the OP over Executive Departments and the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, while the public respondent averred that the OP acted within jurisdiction as Article 166 must yield to the constitutional power of control over Executive Departments, likewise citing exhaustion of administrative remedies.

• Proper Remedy Against OP Decision: Whether the CA was correct in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that petitioner resorted to a wrong mode of appeal.
• OP Appellate Jurisdiction Under Special Law: Whether the OP had appellate jurisdiction to review the DTI Secretary's decision in a RA 7394 consumer case where Article 166 provides for a petition for certiorari with the proper court.

• Proper Remedy Against OP Decision: No. Certiorari was the proper remedy because the OP acted without jurisdiction, and errors of jurisdiction are reviewable by certiorari while errors of judgment are correctible by appeal.
• OP Appellate Jurisdiction Under Special Law: No. Under Administrative Order No. 18 and controlling precedent, appeal to the OP is dispensed with when a special law like RA 7394 provides a different mode of appeal directly to the proper court.

• Proper Remedy Against OP Decision: Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available where a tribunal, board or officer completely acted without jurisdiction, and a judgment rendered without jurisdiction over the subject matter is void. Considering that the OP had no jurisdiction to entertain private respondent's appeal from the DTI Secretary, certiorari lay to correct such jurisdictional error. The CA thus erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of being an improper remedy and in implicitly sustaining that the proper remedy from an OP order was a petition for review under Rule 43.
• OP Appellate Jurisdiction Under Special Law: The procedure for appeals to the OP is governed by Administrative Order No. 18, Series of 1987, whose Section 1 applies unless otherwise governed by special laws. Following Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation vs. The Board of Investments, a decision of a department or agency need not be appealed to the OP when a special law provides a different mode of appeal, executive control not being absolute and appeals being subject to limitation by law and the Court's rulemaking power. Here RA 7394 expressly provided for immediate judicial relief from DTI Secretary decisions by petition for certiorari with the proper court, so private respondent should have elevated the case directly to the CA; its failure to do so within the fifteen-day period rendered the April 28, 2006 DTI Secretary Resolution final and executory.

• Certiorari for errors of jurisdiction; appeal for errors of judgment — Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available where a tribunal, board or officer acted completely without jurisdiction, and a judgment rendered without jurisdiction over the subject matter is void. Applied here, because the OP lacked jurisdiction over the DTI appeal, the jurisdictional defect was reviewable by certiorari rather than by ordinary appeal, so dismissal of the CA certiorari petition as a wrong mode was error.
• Exception to appeal to the Office of the President under special laws — Under Section 1 of Administrative Order No. 18, Series of 1987, appeal to the OP is taken unless otherwise governed by special laws; a department or agency decision need not be appealed to the OP when a special law provides a different mode of appeal. Applied here, Article 166 of RA 7394 prescribing certiorari to the proper court prevailed over AO No. 18, precluding OP appellate review.
• Executive control not absolute — The President's power of control under Section 17, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, defined as power to alter, modify, nullify or set aside what a subordinate did and substitute judgment therefor, is not absolute and may be limited by the Constitution, by law, or by judicial decisions, particularly in appellate procedure which is remedial and subject to the Supreme Court's rulemaking power under Section 5, Article VIII. Applied here, the OP's reliance on control power could not override Article 166's special appeal procedure.
• Finality of DTI Secretary decision under Article 166 — The DTI Secretary shall decide the appeal within thirty days from receipt, and the decision becomes final after fifteen days from receipt unless a petition for certiorari is filed with the proper court. Applied here, private respondent's failure to seek certiorari within fifteen days rendered the April 28, 2006 DTI Resolution final and executory, warranting reinstatement.

• "a decision or order issued by a department or agency need not be appealed to the Office of the President when there is a special law that provides for a different mode of appeal." — States the controlling exception under Administrative Order No. 18 that resolved the jurisdictional conflict in favor of the special law, RA 7394.
• "While errors of judgment are correctible by appeal, errors of jurisdiction are reviewable by certiorari." — Articulates the remedial distinction justifying certiorari as the proper remedy against the OP's void exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
• "The decision becomes final after fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof unless a petition for certiorari is filed with the proper court." — Quotes the operative finality rule in Article 166 that rendered the DTI Secretary's resolution final and executory upon failure to timely seek judicial relief.
• "Unless otherwise governed by special laws, an appeal to the Office of the President shall be taken within thirty (30) days from receipt by the aggrieved party of the decision/resolution/order complained of or appealed from…" — Sets forth the general OP appeal procedure whose qualifying clause allows a special law to prescribe a different mode of appeal.

• Phillips Seafood (Philippines) Corporation vs. The Board of Investments, 597 Phil. 649, 662 (2009) — Followed as controlling precedent that Section 1 of AO No. 18 recognizes an exception where a special law provides a different mode of appeal, and that executive control does not compel OP appeal in such cases.
• Arcelona vs. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 250, 266 (1997) — Cited for the proposition that a judgment rendered without jurisdiction over the subject matter is void, supporting nullification of the OP decision.
• Ongsitco vs. Court of Appeals, 325 Phil. 1069, 1076 (1996) — Cited for the distinction that errors of judgment are correctible by appeal while errors of jurisdiction are reviewable by certiorari, supporting propriety of the CA certiorari petition.

• Article 166, Republic Act No. 7394 — Provides the DTI Secretary shall decide the appeal within thirty days and the decision becomes final after fifteen days unless a petition for certiorari is filed with the proper court; applied to hold that direct judicial recourse, not OP appeal, was the exclusive remedy and that the DTI resolution became final.
• Article 165, Republic Act No. 7394 — Provides non-interlocutory Consumer Arbitration Office orders become final unless appealed to the Department Secretary within fifteen days on grounds of grave abuse of discretion, excess jurisdiction, or unsupported findings; applied to identify the DTI Secretary as the quasi-judicial appellate authority over the CAO.
• Article 98, Republic Act No. 7394 — Imposes liability on the tradesman or seller when the manufacturer, builder, producer or importer cannot be identified, the product is supplied without clear identification thereof, or perishable goods are inadequately preserved; invoked by the OP to deny seller liability, but OP's ruling thereon was void for lack of jurisdiction.
• Section 1, Administrative Order No. 18, Series of 1987 — Governs appeals to the OP unless otherwise governed by special laws; applied to give way to RA 7394 as a special law prescribing certiorari to the proper court.
• Section 17, Article VII, 1987 Constitution — Lays down the President's executive power of control over department secretaries; invoked by respondents but held not absolute and subject to limitation by law in matters of appellate procedure.
• Section 5, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution — Empowers the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning procedure in all courts; cited to explain why appeals, being remedial, may limit executive control claims.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Chairperson, Diosdado M. Peralta, Bienvenido L. Reyes, and Francis H. Jardeleza, Associate Justices, concurred. No separate concurring opinions with additional reasoning appear in the text.