To compensate for the non-usage of the vehicle while under repair and during the period of availment of the Lemon Law rights, the consumer shall be provided a reasonable daily transportation allowance, an amount which covers the transportation of the consumer from his or her residence to his or her regular workplace or destination and vice versa, equivalent to air-conditioned taxi fare, as evidenced by official receipt, or in such amount to be agreed upon by the parties, or a service vehicle at the option of the manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer. Any disagreement on this matter shall be resolved by the DTI.

Nothing herein shall be construed to limit or impair the rights and remedies of a consumer under any other law. (Emphasis supplied)

The confusion is brought about by the last paragraph of Section 7 of RA 10642, which states, “Nothing herein shall be construed to limit or impair the rights and remedies of a consumer under any other law.”

On one hand, the Arbitration Office interprets this to mean that RA 7394’s application is not precluded by the enactment of RA 10642. Likewise, the DTI Secretary opines that while RA 10642 primarily applies in the determination and resolution of consumer complaints with respect to motor vehicles, the law nevertheless recognizes the applicability of RA 7394, or the Consumer Act. On the other hand, respondents contend otherwise. As such, the Court undertakes to construe the said provision.

At first glance, a reading of the foregoing laws reveals that both provide for consumer remedies should they purchase defective goods or services (RA 7394) or brand-new motor vehicles (RA 10642). The CA opined that the laws are repugnant with one another since RA 7394 gives the supplier 30 days to correct the imperfection of the goods or service before the consumer can invoke his/her rights under the same act, while RA 10642 gives the manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer at least four separate repair attempts to resolve the nonconformity. However, the Court finds there is no irreconcilable conflict precisely because of the last paragraph of Section 7 of RA 10642.

Basic is the rule of statutory construction that when the law is clear and unambiguous, the Court is left with no alternative but to apply the same according to its clear language. In H. Villarica Pawnshop Inc. v. Social Security Commission, the Court, through Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, expounded on such rule.

Applying the foregoing rule to the case at bar, a plain reading of the last paragraph of Section 7 will show that there is nothing that prevents a consumer from availing of the remedies under RA 7394 or any other law for that matter even if the subject of the complaint is a brand new vehicle. As such, the Court agrees with the position taken by the DTI Secretary, wherein RA 10642 is an alternative remedy granted to the consumer and the consumer is free to choose to enforce his or her rights under RA 7394 or any other law.

The quoted salient portion of the decision is from Department of Trade and Industry v. Toyota Balintawak Inc. et al. (G.R. No. 254978-79 promulgated on 11 October 2023).