SPS. BARDE vs. J. CORDON COMMERCIAL CORP.

ADM. CASE NO. 01-03

February 24, 2006

Furthermore, the issue on the correct cycle of the subject unit, as to whether
the same has a 60 Hertz-cycle or a 50 Hertz-cycle, cannot just be ignored.
The facts show that when the Complainant-Spouses bought the unit, they
were told that the same has a 60 Hertz-cycle. However, the brochure/manual
given to them and the unit itself showed otherwise, as what appeared
therein was 50 Hertz-cycle. To explain said inconsistency, the Respondents
submitted a Certification dated 02 December 1999 issued by the Frigidaire
International Company, certifying that the sticker on the body frame of the
refrigerator unit bearing the words "50 Hertz" is an erroneous omission as
the same is actually 60 Hertz.

A closer scrutiny of the facts and circumstances, particularly the late

issuance of the certification by Frigidaire International Company creates
doubt as to the truthfulness of said certification considering that the same or
any statement to that effect should have been attached to the
brochures/manuals intended for buyers of like units. In other words, said
certification should have been given together with the brochures and
manuals at the time of the sale and not afterwards because its late issuance
creates the impression that the same was issued merely for the purpose of
controverting the Complainant-Spouses' claim/ allegation that there was
misrepresentation and not of informing beforehand the would be buyers of
the fact that the unit actually has a 60 Hertz-cycle. Foregoing circumstances
considered, it can be deduced that the refrigerator unit does not have a "60
Hertz-Cycle. As a consequence thereof, the condenser fan motor
malfunctioned because it was not compatible with Philippine Voltage ink
thereafter resulted to the emission of foul/stinky odor coming from the unit.

ROSARIO, JR. vs. GOLDILOCKS BAKESHOP, INC.

CAV-CC-045-11
October 8, 2012

The facts of the case reveal that respondent is liable for deceptive sales
act and practices under the Consumer Act. Although respondent admitted
that there was no intention to defraud the complainant, the fact remains
that it became negligent when it failed to exercise the diligence due
and demanded under the existing circumstance. Clearly, the
complainant would not bother to question the price appearing in the receipt
had it been shown from the menu price board that the actual price was
already Php15.00. It must be noted that the law punishes an act of the seller
when it represents that a product or service has been supplied in accordance
with the previous representation when in fact it is not. Since the amount
collected for the rice dish from the complainant is Php15.00, it is one peso
higher than what was indicated in the menu board. Naturally, every person in
a similar situation with complainant could naturally feel to have been
deceived upon noticing that there is a price difference in the actual receipt
than what was shown in the menu board or price list. Thus, even supposing
there was actually no intent to defraud the customers and respondent has
offered to refund the Php1.00 difference, it is to be emphasized that in every
transaction, the seller, respondent included, must be vigilant in dealing with
its customers so as to avoid the occurrence of the circumstance similar to
what transpired in this case.

CHUA vs. COPPER TRADING

ADM. CASE NO. 03-46
June 22, 2006

Apparently, when the complainant purchased the subject 1 Unit 2 HPG

Grundfo's Motor Pump, he thought that it has the performance and
characteristics of a brand new working water pump which could last more
than six (6) months. As a matter of fact, he purchased said motor pump to
use it as water pump in their building. Unfortunately, the subject motor
pump does not have such performance, characteristics, uses or benefits
because it already broke down after only four (4) months. The complainant
was unable to receive a substantial benefit from the transaction.