8/11/2019 dti vs aowa

1/2

Aowa vs. DTI

G.R. No. 189655, April 13, 2011

FACTS:

The DTI-NCR records show at least 273 administrative complaints againstAowa Electronics Philippines, Inc. from the year 2001 to 2007. The facts narrated in the

consumer complaints consistently contain a common thread that a target costumer is

approached by Aowas representative usually in the mall and inform the former that

he/she has won a gift or a give-away. Aowas representatives then verbally reveal that the

said gift can only be claimed upon purchase of additional products. An initial gift is also

offered to target customer and upon acceptance, the customer is invited to Aowas store or

outlet. It is that point that the customer is informed that he/she is qualified for a raffle

draw or contest entitling him to additional gift. In the same manner, the additional gift can

be received only upon purchase of additional products. In the course of enticing the target

customer to purchase additional products, they are physically surrounded (a.k.a ganging

up) by Aowas representatives. The purchase of additional products is not disclosed during

the initial stage of the sales pitch. The revelation is done only when the customer is already

being surrounded by Aowas representatives.

As a result, DTI-NCR filed a Formal Charge against Aowa before the DTI-NCR

Adjudication Officer for violation Articles 50 and 52 of the Consumer Act of the Philippines

praying that a cease and desist order be issued and administrative fines be imposed.

The Adjudication Officer held that DTI-NCR had sufficiently establishedprima

facieevidence against Aowa for violation of the Consumer Act and its Implementing Rules

and Regulations. Furthermore, the Adjudication Officer highlighted that Aowa failed tosecure any Sales Promotion Permit. Thus, a Decision was made declaring Aowa liable

for Deceptive, Unfair and Unconscionable Sales act or Practices.

Aowa appealed the Adjudication Officers Decision before the Appeals Committee

(OLA). On August 26, 2008, the Appeals Committee sustained the Decision and held that the

schemes and techniques employed by Aowa were fraudulent.

Feeling aggrieved, Aowa elevated the Decision of the Appeals Committee to the

Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. However, on June 23,

2009, the CA affirmed the findings of the Appeals Committee.

Still unsatisfied, Aowa finally elevated the case before the Supreme Court by filing a

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking the

reversal of the CA Decision. Briefly stated, Aowa raised among others the following errors

before the high tribunal:

1. There is no sufficient basis in the Formal Charge against Aowa since the

charge is merely based on consumer complaints which have all been

amicably settled.

8/11/2019 dti vs aowa

2/2

2. The CA erred when it affirmed the harsh and excessive Decision of DTI

notwithstanding the fact that the Formal Charge is not supported by any

concrete, sufficient and convincing evidence.

3. The complaints against Aowa pertain to cases in the NCR, hence, there

was no basis for DTI to presume that the allege offenses are likewise

practice in other places in the country.4. Aowa also argued that like other companies, sales personnel employed

enthusiasm and overzealousness in sales talk to convince potential

customers which cannot and should not be considered as deceit.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the findings and ruling

of the Adjudication Officer and the DTI Appeals Committee.

HELD:

In sustaining the CA Decision, the Supreme Court held that it is indubitable that the

DTI is tasked to protect the consumers against deceptive, unfair and unconscionable sales,

acts or practices as defined in Article 50 and 52 of the Consumer Act.It cannot be gainsaid

that the DTI acted on the basis of about 273 consumer complaints against Aowa, averring a

common and viral scheme in carrying out its business to the prejudice of comsumers.

Complaints- filed by consumers not only within NCR but also in the provinces- continued to be

filed even after the formal charge and the issuance of PMO.

In giving due respect to factual findings of DTI, the Supreme Court held: By reason of the

special knowledge and expertise of DTI over matters falling under its jurisdiction, it is in

better position to pass judgment on the issues, and its findings of fact in that regard, especiallywhen confirmed by the CA, are generally accorded with respect, if not finality, by this Court.

Furthermore, Aowa failed to refute DTIs finding that it did not secure any permit for its

alleged promotional sale.

In these trying times when fly-by-night establishments and syndicates proliferate all over the

country, lurking and waiting to prey on innocent consumers , and ganging up on them like a

pack of wolves with their sugar-coated sales talk false fellester.blogspot.com representations

disguised as overzealous marketing strategies, it is the mandated duty of the government,

through its various agencies like the DTI, to be wary and ready to protect each and every

consumer. To allow or to even tolerate the marketing schemes such as these, under the pretext

of promotional sales in contravention of the law and its existing rules and regulations, would

result in consumers being robbed in broad daylight of their hard earned money. This Court

shall not countenance theses pernicious acts at the expense of the consumers.