View full case

EMMANUEL B. MORAN v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES

FACTS:

Emmanuel B. Moran, Jr. filed a complaint against PGA Cars, Inc. with the Consumer Arbitration Office (CAO) on February 2, 2004. The complaint claimed that PGA Cars should be held accountable for the product inconsistencies in a BMW car sold to Moran. The CAO rendered a decision on September 23, 2005, ruling in favor of Moran. It ordered PGA Cars to refund the car's purchase price, pay Moran the costs of litigation, and pay an administrative fine. PGA Cars sought reconsideration of the decision but was denied. It then appealed to the Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), but the DTI dismissed the appeal. PGA Cars then appealed to the Office of the President (OP), which on April 3, 2007, granted the appeal, reversed the DTI's resolution, and dismissed the complaint. Moran filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. Moran then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), claiming lack of jurisdiction on the part of the OP. However, the CA dismissed the petition, considering it a wrong mode of appeal. Concordia V. Moran, Emanuel's widow, filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner was the proper remedy to question the jurisdiction of the Office of the President (OP).

  2. Whether the OP had appellate jurisdiction to review decisions of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in cases involving a violation of RA 7394.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals (CA) was correct in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner. The CA held that appeal was the proper remedy to question the jurisdiction of the OP, and the petitioner failed to avail of this remedy. The CA also found that the petitioner failed to state material dates in the petition, which is a requirement under the Rules of Court.

  2. The OP had appellate jurisdiction to review decisions of the DTI in cases involving a violation of RA 7394. Article 166 of RA 7394 expressly confers appellate jurisdiction to review such decisions of the DTI to the proper court through a petition for certiorari. The Court held that the OP can be considered as the "proper court" within the purview of Article 166.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Appeal is the proper remedy to question the jurisdiction of the Office of the President.

  • The petitioner must state material dates in the petition for certiorari.

  • The Office of the President has appellate jurisdiction to review decisions of the Department of Trade and Industry in cases involving a violation of RA 7394.