7/3/22, 4:25 AM DTI CASE RESPONDENT’S POSITION PAPER – CORPORATE SYSTEM AND EXECUTION

POSITION PAPER
 
RESPONDENT XXX CORPORATION (Respondent XXX ), through its  Officer, respectfully states:
1. PREFATORY
A law is valuable, not because it is a law, but because there is right in it. The law was made for one
thing alone, for the exploitation of those who don’t understand it. Law without justice is a wound
without a cure. [1] Justice consists in doing no injury to men; decency in giving them no offense. [2]
 
1. THE PARTIES
Complainant Department of Trade of Industry, Fair Trade Enforcement Bureau – Enforcement
Division (DTI-FTEB-ED), is a government agency which acts as the implementing arm in Makati City,
Metro Manila of DTI’s policies, programs, rules and regulations as well as those laws which DTI is
mandated to enforce and with office address at 2nd Floor, UPRC Building, 315 Sen. Gil Puyat Ave.,
Makati City, where it may be served with this Honorable Office’s orders, notices, and processes.
Respondent YYY BRANCH (Respondent YYY), is a corporation duly organized and existing under
and by virtue of Philippine Laws with place of business located at YYY, Tacloban City, where it may be
served with this Honorable Office’s notices, orders, and processes.
 
Respondent XXX CORPORATION (Respondent XXX ) is a corporation duly registered in the
Philippines with office address at XXX, Quezon City.  It may be served with orders, notices, and
processes of this Honorable Office through its  Officer, MMM, with office address at xxx Quezon City.
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS
 
1. The Complaint, denominated as “Formal Charge with Prayer for the Issuance of a Preventive
Measure Order”by Complainant Department of Trade of Industry, Fair Trade Enforcement
Bureau – Enforcement Division (DTI-FTEB-ED), is one for ADMINISTRATIVE CASE.
 
2. The Complainant prays for the following judgment against respondent YYY, viz:
 
10. Penalties and fines be imposed against Respondent in the manner provided under section 10.5of
DAO 2 Series of 2007, as the Adjudication Officer may deem appropriate.
 
1. To pay the cost of the withdrawal and transport of the products subject of this case and the
expenses incurred in prosecuting the case.
 
A Cease and Desist Order be issued against the Respondent for the latter to refrain from
continuing the acts complained of and from further committing the same violation in the future; and
https://legalinsightcorporateinstinct.wordpress.com/2018/11/17/dti-case-respondents-position-paper/ 1/4
7/3/22, 4:25 AM DTI CASE RESPONDENT’S POSITION PAPER – CORPORATE SYSTEM AND EXECUTION

 
1. Seizure and Destruction Order of the subject products upon finding that the same did not comply
with the requirement prescribed by law and rules.
 
3. The facts constituting the alleged violation and offense filed by the DTI-FTEB-ED in its Formal
Charge against respondent CITI Hardware for violation of Subsections 3,5,5.1.6.1.3, and 6.2.1
of DAO No. 2, Series of 2007, DAO No. 4 series of 2008 and Its Implementing Rules and
Regulation in relation to Philippine National Standards PNS 1572:1997 IEC 83:1975, PNS
1573:1997 IEC 947-2:1995, PNS 56:1996 ANSI/UL 512:1992, PNS 80:1997 IEC 238:1996, PNS
IEC 60355-2-80:2000 IEC Published 1997, PNS 35-1:2004, PNS 255:1996 IEC 335-2-15:1995,
PNS 254-1:1994 AMD. 01:2000 IEC 0335-2-3:1993 Amd. 01:1999, PNS 272:1996 IEC 335-2-
9:1993, PNS 255:1996 IEC 335-2-15:1995 pursuant to Republic Act No. 4109.
 
4. The complaint states that the Complainant acts as the implementing arm of DTI’s policies,
programs, rules and regulations as well as those laws which the DTI is mandated to enforce;
5. That the alleged purpose of the Team in conducting its enforcement and monitoring activity on the
said establishment was to determine whether Respondent YYY is selling and offering for sale to
the public of consumer products mentioned above conformed to the requirement of law stated
in DAO No. 2, Series of 2007 and DAO 4 series of 2008 and its Implementing Rules and
regulations in relation to Philippine Standards PNS 1572:1997 IEC 83:1975, PNS 1573:1997 IEC
947-2:1995, PNS 56:1996 ANSI/UL 512:1992, PNS 80:1997 IEC 238:1996, PNS IEC 60355-2-
80:2000 IEC Published 1997, PNS 35-1:2004, PNS 255:1996 IEC 335-2-15:1995, PNS 254-
1:1994 AMD. 01:2000 IEC 0335-2-3:1993 Amd. 01:1999, PNS 272:1996 IEC 335-2-9:1993, PNS
255:1996 IEC 335-2-15:1995 pursuant to Republic Act 4109.
 
6. That during said inspection, the Team noticed that respondent YYY was engaged in the business
of offering for sale and/or selling of, among others, the two (2) units EXHAUST FAN of
Respondent XXX .
 
7. The products of Respondent XXX  were sealed on the alleged ground that no PS/ICC marks
indicated on the product as required under DAO 2 series of 2007 in relation to Philippine National
Standard PNS 1572:1997 IEC 83:1975, PNS 1573:1997 IEC 947-2:1995, PNS 56:1996 ANSI/UL
512:1992, PNS 80:1997 IEC 238:1996, PNS IEC 60355-2-80:2000 IEC Published 1997, PNS 35-
1:2004, PNS 255:1996 IEC 335-2-15:1995, PNS 254-1:1994 AMD. 01:2000 IEC 0335-2-3:1993
Amd. 01:1999, PNS 272:1996 IEC 335-2-9:1993, PNS 255:1996 IEC 335-2-15:1995 pursuant
to Republic Act 4109.
 
8. Thereafter, the Team has issued and served upon Respondent YYY the following documents: 1)
Notice of Violation, 2) Incident Report, and 3) Certificate of Orderly Conduct of Inspection for
Sealed Products with Inventory of Non-Conforming Products pertaining to the above-mentioned
alleged violation.
 
9. It must be noted of this Honorable Office that the Notice of Violation and Hearing fails to clearly
state the provisions of the appropriate DTI Fair Trade law, Department Administrative Orders

https://legalinsightcorporateinstinct.wordpress.com/2018/11/17/dti-case-respondents-position-paper/ 2/4
7/3/22, 4:25 AM DTI CASE RESPONDENT’S POSITION PAPER – CORPORATE SYSTEM AND EXECUTION

violated by the said establishment, as required under General Enforcement Guidelines of DTI DAO
2: 2007, pursuant to Republic Act No. 4109.
 
10. To be sure, the Notice of Violation was written in such a way that it does not allow an easy and
accurate perception or interpretation of the specific provisions of any DTI Law allegedly committed
by the Respondent YYY. Simply, it did not clearly mention any specific provisions allegedly to have
been violated by the Respondent YYY.
 
11. It must be noted further by that the Notice of Violation was solely directed upon the Respondent
YYY.
 
12. The charge further mentioned that within the forty-eight (48) hour period in the Notice of
Violation, the respondent appeared. The Prosecution Officer discussed and explained the nature
of violation and proceedings of the case. Respondent expressed their willingness to participate in
the proceedings.
 
13. On 5 November 2018, herein Human Resource and Administrative Officer of Respondent
XXX was informed of this Administrative Case.
 
14. Respondent XXX  is the exclusive distributor in the Philippines of XXX LED lights and dual power
rechargeable products and sells to industrial and individual customers for personal and industrial
use.
 
15. Respondent XXX  respectfully submits upon this Honorable Office that it undertakes steps to
address the alleged violation and assure compliance of the standard requirements that all its
products being distributed for sale are in accord with the DTI rules and guidelines. Stricter internal
quality control measures are likewise currently being undertaken.
 
16. Hence, Respondent XXX  submits herein Motion For Leave To Admit Attached Respondent’s
Position Paper.
 
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Respondent XXX believes that the legal issues are the following:
 
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT HAS A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST RESPONDENT
AKARI IN THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW
 
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINT WAS IMPROPER AND/OR OFF-TANGENT FOR FAILURE
TO COMPLY WITH STRICT REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH UNDER DEPARTMENT
https://legalinsightcorporateinstinct.wordpress.com/2018/11/17/dti-case-respondents-position-paper/ 3/4
7/3/22, 4:25 AM DTI CASE RESPONDENT’S POSITION PAPER – CORPORATE SYSTEM AND EXECUTION

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. XXX

 
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINT VIOLATES THE DTI XXX
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT YYY AND/OR RESPONDENT XXX SHOULD BE: 1) FINED
AND PENALIZED, 2) REQUIRED TO PAY FOR THE WITHDRAWAL AND TRANSPORT COST OF
THE ITEMS, AND 3) BE CEASED AND DESIST FROM CONTINUING THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF
AND FROM FUTHER COMMITTING THE SAME IN HE FUTURE.
 
18. Respondent XXX submits that Firstly, the Complainant did not have any cause of action against
Respondent YYY and/or Respondent XXX . Secondly, Complainant DTI failed to dutifully comply
with the requirements of the law in conducting the investigation and procedure, Thirdly, the
conduct of the enforcement and monitoring activity was secured without legal and proper authority,
and therefore, it cannot validly enforce the DTI Law. And Lastly, Complainant DTI cannot secure a
valid judgment against Respondent YYY and/or Respondent XXX.
19. Hence, the following Discussions and Arguments of Respondent XXX.
 
18. DISCUSSIONS/ARGUMENTS

https://legalinsightcorporateinstinct.wordpress.com/2018/11/17/dti-case-respondents-position-paper/ 4/4