Free Legal Advice Philippines

Disclaimer: This web site is designed for general information only and does not create attorney-client relationship. Persons accessing this site are encouraged to seek independent counsel for legal advice regarding their individual legal issues.

Log in

I forgot my password




You are not connected. Please login or register

Consumers Protection ACT

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Consumers Protection ACT on Sat Nov 12, 2011 1:15 am

Cire


Arresto Menor
Sir gusto ko lang po itong ishare sa inyo and would like to seek advise as to what to do. Kasi nakabili kami ng can goods na when we opened eh may dumi sa loob. We took picture of it and emailed the manufacturer. Kasi ang laki ng dumi sa loob po ng lata. Aminado sila na may sumabotahe sa kanila sa loob ng planta. Ask ko lang po will be right kung mag ask kami ng reward about that/or any sort of compensation kasi what if nakain ng mga anak ko yun accidentally at nagkasakit.Or much better na iraise namin to sa right department na naghahandle ng such case to avoid any instance na ganun since delikado sa food poison at gastro enteritis.
Hope to hear from you soon.By the way po nakipagkita pa sa akin yung sales manager nila at kinuha yung tin can at ang laman for investigation and they sent me a confirmation na may dumi talaga. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.

View user profile

2 Re: Consumers Protection ACT on Sat Nov 12, 2011 11:21 pm

attyLLL


moderator
consumer protection act allows you to return shoddy goods, but as for damages, you have to prove your entitlement. you can ask for it,but if they refuse, then you can file a case in court for damages.


_________________
[i] Visit our FB Page: BPO Employee Legal Advice
Warning and Disclaimer: I am not your lawyer; and you are not my client. With the limitations of an  Internet forum, a thorough review of your concern is not possible. View my comments at YOUR OWN RISK. It is best to actually retain a lawyer for your individual concerns.
View user profile

3 Re: Consumers Protection ACT on Fri Nov 25, 2011 6:39 pm

altheajhann


Arresto Menor
Sir,

Gusto ko lang po malaman kung gaano po ba kalakas ang laban ko against the respondent. Yesterday lang po nagkaroon na kami ng initial conference with adjudication officer. According sa Adj. officer once na piliin ko ang refund tapos na ang kaso. Pero naisip ko naman paano naman ang violations ng respondent..Ganun na lang ba yun??? Pagkatapos nila ako paghantayin ng matagal, pagkatapos ko gumastos sa pabalik balik na mediation pero di sila sumisipot. Kaya naman Nag decide ako to pursue it for further investigation para malaman kung sino ba ang mali sa amin... According sa respondent Nareleased ang nirepair na camera May 13, 2011 pero never silang umatend ng mediation to explain whatever they need to explain... Until ma-elevate ang kaso, and DTI issued summon and they were asked to file a verified answer pero wala silang response...Dumating lang sila noong initial conference under adjudication officer... Para mas maintindhan nyo po eto po ang narration of violations nila....

******
In my own understanding of the Consumer Act law and its provisions, I believe that WELLCOM Telecom Supermarket committed violations in relation to the following provisions:
Violations of the Consumer Act of the Philippines (R.A. 7394)
1. Provision on Deceptive, Unfair and Unconscionable Acts/Practices
2. Provision on Defective Products and Service Imperfection
3. Provision on Consumer Products and Service Warranties

Violation of Prohibited Acts of Department Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 2002, Enumerated under Section 6 specifically:
6.7 Failure to comply with any duly served notice, summons, or subpoenas issued by the Mediation Officer, Consumer Arbitration Officer or Hearing Officer;
6.10 Failure to comply with the orders pursuant to Article 11 of R.A. 7394 relating to the a) notification requirements on; and b) recall, repair, replacement or refund of substandard products

Allow me to discuss it further:
• On December 13, 2010, I went to WELLCOM Telecom Supermarket (SM City Fairview) and asked to see the included accessories of the displayed GE E1480W digital camera. The store’s staff, Gerlinda Ermita told me that a 4GB HSDC memory card, battery and charger are the included accessories of the camera but she told me also that, “Ma’am, wala po kaming demo product. Kung bibilhin ninyo yung camera, ilalabas ko po at ide-demo”. Since I was interested in buying a camera, I told her, “Ok, sige, bibilhin ko na”. So then, she brought out the GE E1480W and showed me its basic operations and she even gave me a free camera bag. There was no warranty card included so I asked her, “Asan po ang warranty card?”, and she answered, “The receipt serves as warranty”.
• Between December 13 and December 19, the camera was used very sparingly as I was at the office during the work days;
• On December 20, 2010, the 7th day from the purchase of the camera, its defect became apparent during the Christmas Party held by the Screenwriters Guild of the Philippines which I attended. The images were blurred, distorted and showed ghostly double images.

• After the manifestations of the defect, there was no way that I could immediately return the unit to the store due to the following reasons:
-December 20, 2010 - the SGP Christmas Party ended late at night. SM Fairview would have been closed already.
-December 21, 2010 - I had a scheduled trip to Bicol until January 3, 2011.
-January 3, 2011 until February –Since LCD sometimes display distorted images or ghostly double images both in the viewfinder and in print or digital display when the camera is turned on or after being idle for a short period of time, I thought I would give the camera’s behaviour some thorough observation. There were instances when the pictures would be clear and crisp, then the defects would come back at any moment during use.

•Sometime in February 2011, I brought the defective unit to Wellcom to report the defect. That time, the images in LCD were not distorted/ghostly double but the color was unusual - the images were all purple. I let the store’s male staff check the camera’s settings and even showed him the distorted/ghostly double pictures stored in my camera. But the staff insisted that it may be only the settings of the camera. I would not accept his diagnosis because it is improbable that GE E1480W would install a setting in the unit that would consciously distort, blur or color the images purple. Besides, if it was only based on proper settings, why could not the staff fix it? Were they supposed to know the settings and features of the camera? Finally, the staff recommended that the unit be submitted to the service center and asked for a photocopy of my official receipt.

•I had no photocopy of the receipt. Since the store’s recommended no other option but to have my newly-bought unit repaired, I decided to come back another day with a written report and with evidences of the defects in pictures and videos.

•In March 3, 2011, I again brought the defective unit to Wellcom with a printed report and scanned receipt. I told the Wellcom staff, Ms. Gerlinda Ermita, that the product I purchased on December 13, 2010 was defective. I let her check my camera again. And again, that time the images in LCD were not distorted/ghostly but the images were still colored purple. I told her “Yang kulay pa lang makikita mong may depekto na ang camera, hindi pa yung distorted images na nirereklamo ko. Kaya ko nga ibinalik ulit yan dito, kasi noong una kong dinala yan dito yung staff nyong lalaki ipinipilit lang na sa settings ng camera. Kaya nag-decide akong bumalik na lang ulit para makagawa ng report at para mas maraming evidences na maipapakita”.

•I asked Ms. Ermita if they could replace the product but she informed me that the store has a 7-days replacement policy. Since the product was purchased December 13, 2010 and the 7 days policy had lapsed, I had two options left: One, to keep the defective camera with me or, two, agree with them to send it off to the service center.

•After signing the job order that would send my newly-bought but defective camera to the service center, the staff told me that I can call them every now and then to know the status of the repair, or better, that they could give me the telephone number of the service center and that I be the one to follow it up with the center so I can be apprised of the status of my camera.

During all these transactions, I was not aware that the 7 days replacement store policy does not apply if an item is defective, and that there is no hard-and-fast rule on the period within which a customer may return the defective products purchased.

Since the store did not allow me the replacement of the defective product, and there was no mishandling of the product on my part, such action points to Wellcom’s VIOLATION OF THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF R.A. 7394, OR THE CONSUMER ACT OF THE PHILIPPINES, specifically the “NO RETURN, NO EXCHANGE” policy, and VIOLATION OF PROHIBITED ACTS OF DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 02, SERIES OF 2002, ENUMERATED UNDER SECTION 6 specifically: 6.10 Failure to comply with the Orders issued pursuant to Article 11 of R.A. 7394, relating to the a) notification requirements on; and b) recall, repair, replacement or refund of substandard products
The fraudulent information by the staff regarding the seven (7) days replacement policy is considered deceptive, because it created a misconception on my part that I did not have the right to return a defective item and demand for remedies. Since no other options were made available to me, it forced me to sign a Job Order agreement that will send off my camera to the service center, which also was excessively one-sided in favour of WELLCOM with no benefits accruing me as consumer (see attached Job Order Slip Agreement No. 1 and 4).
Moreover the manager, Jhonny Bautista and staff Gerlinda Ermita took advantage of my ignorance. Both being involved with such commerce are supposed to know that the Consumer Law specifically the No Return, No Exchange policy and the 7 Days Replacement or any equivalent taglines are not allowed by the Department of Trade and Industry. This deceptive and unfair act is therefore a violation of the CONSUMER ACT OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A 7394) specifically, THE PROVISION ON DECEPTIVE, UNFAIR AND UNCONSCIONABLE ACTS/PRACTICES.

As consumer, I have the right to demand for the rightful remedy I want in order to get due satisfaction of the item I purchased. The responsibility is on the supplier, seller or retailer to act on demands made by consumers who have purchased their defective goods. As for the Job order slip I signed on March 3, 2011, which in the agreement states “Failure or neglect to confirm any job order within thirty (30) days shall considered as abandonment of customer’s rights or interest thereon”, since the store does not honor my demand and they have not followed up the service since then, their act violated the signed agreement which is also a VIOLATION OF THE CONSUMER ACT OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A 7394) specifically, THE PROVISION ON DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS AND SERVICE IMPERFECTION.

In my effort to assert my right as consumer, I have posed this problem with the Department of Trade and Industry, which in turn has called for a hearing with myself and WELLCOM as initial mediation. In both instances that the hearings were scheduled, May 24 and June 7, 2011 WELLCOM failed to comply with the duly served notices issued by the DTI Mediation Officer, nor did they send any representative in their behalf, nor did they call the DTI with an explanation on their failure to appear. Apparently, this is a violation of Department of Administrative Order (DAO) 02, Series of 2002 specifically: 6.7 Failure to comply with any duly served notice, summons, or subpoenas issued by the Mediation Officer, Consumer Arbitration Officer or Hearing Officer.
After exhibiting such image and credibility, it is obvious that WELLCOM is not after the welfare of its consumers. A well-informed and well-intentioned manager and staff will always act to minimize consumer complaints.

View user profile

4 Re: Consumers Protection ACT on Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:55 pm

attyLLL


moderator
what weakens your position is that you waited more than a month before bringing it back.

don't expect anything much with their failure to attend. but pretty decent work for a non-lawyer.


_________________
[i] Visit our FB Page: BPO Employee Legal Advice
Warning and Disclaimer: I am not your lawyer; and you are not my client. With the limitations of an  Internet forum, a thorough review of your concern is not possible. View my comments at YOUR OWN RISK. It is best to actually retain a lawyer for your individual concerns.
View user profile

5 Re: Consumers Protection ACT Today at 1:59 am

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum