Noncompliant flat irons

On 10 September 2024, the Supreme Court published its En Banc’s Decision in Robinsons Appliances v. Secretary of DTI and DTI-FTEB (G.R. 264196, 28 May 2024), affirming Robinsons Appliances Corporation’s liability for selling Hanabishi flat irons that failed to meet certification standards.

The case began with an inspection by the Department of Trade and Industry — Fair Trade Enforcement Bureau (DTI-FTEB) on 29 January 2016 at Robinsons Appliances’ Robinsons Forum branch in Mandaluyong City. This inspection was part of the DTI’s effort to enforce compliance with the Mandatory Philippine National Standard (PNS) under Republic Act 4109, which mandates product standardization and inspection.

The inspection uncovered that 15 Hanabishi flat irons sold by Robinsons Appliances displayed the Philippine Standard (PS) Mark but lacked the required PS License Number, violating Department Administrative Orders (DAO) 2-2007 and 4-2008. These DAOs require proper product certification marks to ensure safety and quality standards.

The DTI-FTEB filed a complaint against Robinsons Appliances for failing to comply with the marking and labeling requirements. The absence of the PS License Number rendered the products uncertified and subject to penalties under the DAOs.

Robinsons Appliances argued that as a retailer, it was not responsible for the product markings, and that Fortune Buddies Corporation, the manufacturer and distributor of Hanabishi appliances, should be held accountable for the lack of PS License Numbers. The company claimed that its role was limited to selling products and that it should not be held liable for the manufacturer’s failure to comply with certification requirements.

The company also questioned the authority of the DTI-FTEB to conduct the inspection, arguing that under DAO 2-2007, only the Bureau of Product Standards (BPS) or the DTI Regional or Provincial Director had the authority to inspect its premises. Robinsons Appliances claimed that DTI-FTEB’s inspection was unauthorized and violated its right to due process.

The DTI-FTEB rejected Robinsons Appliances’ arguments, asserting that retailers are responsible for ensuring compliance with mandatory certification standards. It emphasized that DAO 2-2007 explicitly holds retailers liable for violations related to noncompliant products. The DTI-FTEB imposed a P25,000 fine and ordered the forfeiture of the noncompliant Hanabishi flat irons.

Robinsons Appliances appealed to the Secretary of the DTI, maintaining that Fortune Buddies should be held accountable.

The company also continued to challenge the legality of the DTI-FTEB’s inspection. Despite these arguments, the DTI Secretary upheld the DTI-FTEB’s decision, affirming that DAO 2-2007 and DAO 4-2008 required the PS License Number on certified products and that retailers are responsible for compliance.

Robinsons Appliances appealed to the Court of Appeals but the CA dismissed the petition, siding with the DTI and upholding the penalties against Robinsons Appliances. The appellate court confirmed that the retailer was correctly held liable for selling noncompliant products and upheld the legality of the DTI-FTEB’s inspection.

The Supreme Court also dismissed Robinsons Appliances’ arguments, finding no merit in its claims and upholding the decisions of both the DTI and the CA. The Court emphasized that products like electronic irons are subject to mandatory certification, and retailers must ensure that these products display the necessary identification marks, including the PS License Number, to prove compliance with the PNS.

The High Court noted that DAO 2-2007 and DAO 4-2008 clearly impose compliance responsibilities on both manufacturers and retailers. Specifically, Section 5.1 of DAO 2-2007 mandates that products covered by PS Certification Mark Schemes must display all required identification marks, including the PS License Number. The Court highlighted that selling products that do not conform to PNS standards is prohibited.

Robinsons Appliances’ defense, asserting that it was merely a retailer and not liable for the manufacturer’s errors, was rejected. The Court affirmed that retailers are legally obligated to sell only products that meet PNS standards, regardless of manufacturing issues. In addition, the Court dismissed Robinsons Appliances’ procedural arguments, confirming the DTI-FTEB’s authority to conduct the inspection.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that retailers must ensure products meet Philippine National Standards, including proper certification markings. Retailers are legally obligated to adhere to these standards to protect consumers and maintain market integrity. The Court’s ruling highlights the importance of strict compliance with product certification requirements to avoid penalties and ensure public safety.

***

For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www. divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cad@divinalaw.com.