Understanding the Philippine Lemon Law (1)

Understanding the Philippine Lemon Law (1) | Daily Tribune

We all know how exciting it is to have a new car. Whether it’s a gift to ourselves for a special occasion or a reward for reaching a goal, we relish that exhilarating moment of getting behind the wheel of our brand-new car: The smell of the new cabin, the look of everything brand new — from the engine and leather seats to the glistening body paint.

I remember when I purchased a car, I really liked a few years back; I was so happy that I would go to the garage at night just to catch a glimpse of it. We love our new purchases so much that we treat them like babies. That is why it is such a bummer when it breaks down during its first few months — a complete mood dampener.

Good thing we have the Philippine Lemon Law, also known as Republic Act 10642. This law grants buyers protection from defective vehicles and affords them options, which include the replacement of the vehicle itself. Replacement, however, comes only after the seller is given an opportunity to repair the defect. If the defect persists despite repairs, the buyer can opt for the car’s replacement within the period provided by the law.

But what if the buyer does not want to have the car repaired and instead opts for a replacement right away? Would this not be in line with the successive remedies provided by the Philippine Lemon Law?

The answer to whether the consumer can directly jump to a replacement is yes. Under the Philippine Lemon Law? No. However, such an option is possible under the Consumer Act of the Philippines, also known as Republic Act 7394. Here is how the Supreme Court discussed the availment under the latter law.

At this juncture, the Court recognizes that the crux of the instant controversy is which between RA 7394 and RA 10642 is the proper law to be applied insofar as Marilou’s complaint is concerned. As may be gleaned above, the DTI Secretary is of the opinion that the former law can be applied; whereas the TBI and TMPC posited that the latter law is applicable.

On one hand, Article 100 of RA 7394 (the law relied upon by Marilou) reads:

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

If the imperfection is not corrected within 30 days, the consumer may alternatively demand, at their 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;

Replacement, however, comes only after the seller is given an opportunity to repair the defect.

(c) A proportionate price reduction.

The parties may agree to reduce or increase the term specified in the preceding paragraph; but such shall not be less than seven nor more than 180 days.

The consumer may make immediate use of the alternatives under the second paragraph of this article when, by virtue of the extent of the imperfection, the replacement of the imperfect parts may jeopardize the product’s quality or characteristics, thus decreasing its value.

(To be continued)