https://www.facebook.com/106034619257332/

Atty. Johnnyvel S. Sombilon

Home
Philippines
Makati
Atty. Johnnyvel S. Sombilon

Lawyer

13/08/2026

Distinction between Articles 50 (Deceptive Sales Acts/Practices and 52 (Unfair or Unconscionable Sales/Practices) of the Consumer Act

31/07/2026

Universal Robina Corporation v. DTI
G.R. No. 203353
February 14, 2023

Violation/Subject Matter:
Section 5 (2) of the Price Act (Republic Act No. 7581)

Issue:
Whether or not the definition of profiteering is vague, thus necessitating the application of the "void-for-vagueness principle".

Ruling:
No. “Although the Price Act does not define the terms ‘true worth’ or ‘price grossly in excess’ of true worth, our laws recognize that a reasonable price is a question of fact that can be determined based on the circumstances. Moreover, the Price Act enumerates instances when there can be a prima facie evidence of profiteering.”

“Thus, the law specifies that the 10% increase will be the basis for a prima facie determination of profiteering. This provides some anchor for assessing whether profiteering has occurred, though that determination is inconclusive. The increase may, at the implementing agency's discretion, be used to determine further whether the prima facie presumption will hold.”

15/07/2026

Autozentrum Alabang, Inc. v. Sps. Bernardo and DTI
G.R. No. 214122
June 08, 2016

Violation/Subject Matter:
Articles 50 (Deceptive Sales Acts/Practices), 97 (Liability for Defective Products), and 98 (Liability of Tradesman or Seller) of the Consumer Act

Issues:
1. Whether or not Petitioner violated Article 97.
2. Whether or not Petitioner violated Article 50.
3. Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion in ordering solely the Petitioner to refund the entire purchase price of the subject vehicle.
4. Whether or not the amount for the administrative fine was properly imposed.

Ruling:
1. Yes. “RA 7394 specifically provides that an act of a seller is deceptive when it represents to a consumer that a product is new, original or unused, when in fact, it is deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, reclaimed or second-hand.”

a. “A representation is not confined to words or positive assertions; it may consist as well of deeds, acts or artifacts of a nature calculated to mislead another and thus allow the fraud-feasor to obtain an undue advantage.”

b. “Failure to reveal a fact which the seller is, in good faith, bound to disclose may generally be classified as a deceptive act due to its inherent capacity to deceive. Suppression of a material fact which a party is bound in good faith to disclose is equivalent to a false representation.”

2. No. “However, Autozentrum cannot be liable under Article 97 of RA 7394 because Spouses Bernardo failed to present evidence that Autozentrum is the manufacturer, producer, or importer of the car and that damages were caused to them due to defects in design, manufacture, construction, assembly and er****on, formulas and handling and making up, presentation or packing of products, as well as for the insufficient or inadequate information on the use and hazards thereof.”

3. No. “The DTI is tasked with protecting the consumer against deceptive, unfair, and unconscionable sales acts or practices. Thus, the DTI can impose restitution or rescission of the contract without damages and payment of administrative fine ranging from P500 to P300,000, plus P1,000 for each day of continuing violation.”

4. Yes. “Records show that Autozentrum already possessed the car since 8 August 2011. Thus, the DTI Hearing Officer and the CA correctly applied RA 7394 and DTI Department Administrative Order No. 007-06 when they ordered Autozentrum to return to Spouses Bernardo the value of the car amounting to P2,990,000 and to pay an administrative fine of P160,000 and an additional administrative fine of not more than P1,000 for each day of continuing violation.”

10/07/2026

Spouses Batalla v. Prudential Bank
G.R. No. 200676
March 25, 2019

Violation/Subject Matter:
Implied warranty against hidden defects under the Civil Code vis-à-vis Product Imperfection (Article 100 of the Consumer Act)

Issue:
Whether or not the defect must be of such significance as to impair the vehicle’s roadworthiness before the motor vehicle may be considered imperfect.

Ruling:
Yes. “As can be seen, the redhibitory action pursued by Spouses Batalla was without basis. For one, it was not sufficiently proven that the defects of the car door were important or serious. The hidden defect contemplated under Article 1561 of the Civil Code is an imperfection or defect of such nature as to engender a certain degree of importance and not merely one of little consequence. Spouses Batalla failed to prove that such defect had severely diminished the roadworthiness of the motor vehicle. In fact, they admitted that they had no problem as to the road worthiness of the car.”

01/07/2026

Aowa Electronic Philippines, Inc. v. DTI
G.R. No. 189655
April 13, 2011

Violation/Subject Matter:
Articles 50 and 52 of the Consumer Act (Deceptive, Unfair, and Unconscionable Sales Acts or Practices)

Issue:
Whether or not there is a reversible error in finding Petitioner Aowa liable for violation of Articles 50 and 52 of the Consumer Act.

Ruling:
No, there is no reversible error in finding Petitioner Aowa liable for violation of Articles 50 and 52 of the Consumer Act.

“It is undisputed that the techniques/scheme employed by [Aowa] were fraudulently (sic) considering that the same were being used as a bait to lure customers into buying it products. [Aowa’s] customary act of giving gifts and the so called prizes to its prospective customers in order to entice them to enter the store outlet and later convincing (sic) them to purchase the products [it is] selling are (sic) but common trends (sic) that occurred in every complaint lodged against [Aowa] before the DTI-NCR and regional offices. In such manner, it is evident that the said scheme is actually the means by which [Aowa] operates its business. Simply, it is intrinsically connected to the business itself of and had [Aowa] not employed those techniques, customers would not have transacted with it.”

“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 and false 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 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.”

25/06/2026

DTI v. Toyota Balintawak and Toyota Motor Phils. Corp.
G.R. Nos. 254978-79
October 11, 2023

Violation/Subject Matter:
Article 100 of the Consumer Act vis-à-vis Lemon Law

Issue:
Whether or not there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the DTI Secretary when it applied the Consumer Act instead of the Lemon Law.

Ruling:
"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."

07/01/2026

Congratulations sa mga bagong abogado!

Address

Makati

Website

facebook.com

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Atty. Johnnyvel S. Sombilon posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Atty. Johnnyvel S. Sombilon:

Want your practice to be the top-listed law practice in Makati?