Dear PAO,

Last month, we purchased a new family vehicle. On our way home, we noticed a grinding noise and jerky movements every time my husband shifted gears. I immediately informed the sales agent, who advised us to return the vehicle for inspection. After a thorough check, the manager offered to replace the transmission assembly and reprogram the Engine Control Unit (ECU), all for free. Shocked by this, I demanded a full vehicle replacement or a refund. However, they refused, citing the Philippine Lemon Law, which supposedly allows them four repair attempts before being obligated to replace the vehicle. Are they correct?

Ruvelyn

Dear Ruvelyn,

Section 5 of Republic Act (RA) 10642, otherwise known as Philippine Lemon Law, provides “at any time within the Lemon Law rights period, and after at least four (4) separate repair attempts by the same manufacturer, distributor, authorized dealer or retailer for the same complaint, and the nonconformity issue remains unresolved, the consumer may invoke his or her rights under this Act.”

However, the remedy provided under RA 10642 is an alternative and not exclusive. Thus, the consumer has the option of availing this remedy or availing of other remedies under any other law, like RA 7394, also known as The Consumer Act of the Philippines, because RA10642 itself provides that “nothing herein shall be construed to limit or impair the rights and remedies of a consumer under any other law.” This is the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the recent case of DTI v. Toyota Balintawak, Inc., GR 254978-79, Oct. 11, 2023, penned by Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr., to wit:

“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 the one hand, the Arbitration Office interprets this to mean that RA 7394’s [Consumer Act of the Philippines] application is not precluded by the enactment of RA 10642 [The Philippine Lemon Law]. 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 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 non-conformity. However, the Court finds there is no irreconcilable conflict precisely because of the last paragraph of Section 7 of RA 10642.

“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.”

In your case, it is clear that the four separate attempts mentioned to you by the manager apply only if you avail your rights under RA 10642. However, if your claim is based on RA 7394 and/or other applicable laws, the four separate attempts may not apply. Lastly, since the option is granted to consumers, you are the one to decide which legal remedy you wish to avail.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our application of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]