Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

DECISION

Article 18 of Republic Act No. 7394 (The Consumer Act of the


Philippines) states that it shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture for
sale, offer for sale, distribute in commerce, or import into the Philippines any
consumer product which is not in conformity with an applicable consumer
product quality or safety standard promulgated in this Act.

It is clear that Imperial Bucket Corporation failed to exercise its rightful


duty to protect the interest of its consumers by manufacturing and offering
the pail knowing that it had serious design flaws which could cause severe
injury. In addition, pursuant to the above-mentioned law, these manufacturers
are bound to provide labels for its products for the purpose of giving
information as to identify, components, ingredients, attributes, directions for
use, specifications and such other information as may be required by law or
regulations1. In this case, the pail manufactured by the Defendant included
no directions for safe use, no warnings of any kind of the potential danger of
the pail, and no safety devices to protect individuals from suffering injuries
when using the pail. Hence, this amounts to a neglect of responsibility to
conform to the standards laid upon by the law.

1 Article 4 par aq, R.A No. 7394

Under the law on obligations, responsibility arising from fraud is demandable


in all obligations and any waiver of an action for future fraud is void.
Responsibility arising from negligence is also demandable in any obligation,
but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the
circumstances.2 Those guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay in the
performance of their obligations and those who in any manner contravene
the tenor thereof are liable for damages. 3

Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides that whoever by act or omission
causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay
for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relations between the parties, is called a quasi-delict. To sustain
a claim based on quasi-delict, the following requisites must concur: (a)
damage suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of defendant; and (c)
connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of defendant
and the damage incurred by the plaintiff 4. Applying the provision in the
present case, although it can be said that there is no pre-existing contract
between the parties, the liability may itself be deemed to arise from quasidelict because there being fault on the part of Imperial Bucket Corporation to
provide the necessary consumer product safety for its consumers. Thus, there
2 Article 1171 and 1172, Civil Code
3 Article 1170, Civil Code
4 Dy Teban Trading, Inc. v. Ching, G.R. No. 161803, 4 February 2008, 543
SCRA 560

is no dispute that Jack Doe and Jill Doe suffered damages because of the
callously manufactured pail.

Under American law, the liabilities of a manufacturer or seller of injurycausing products may be based on negligence 5, breach of warranty6, tort7, or
other grounds such as fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation 8. Quasi-delict, as
defined in Article 2176 of the Civil Code, (which is known in Spanish legal
treaties as culpa aquiliana, culpa extra-contractual or cuasi-delitos 9) is
homologous but not identical to tort under the common law. 10

5 63 AM JUR 2d Products Liability, 25.


6 Id., 91
7 Id., 123
8 Id., 153
9 Report of the Code Commission on the Proposed Civil Code of the
Philippines, 161
10 Vasquez vs. De Borja, 74 Phil. 560 [1944]

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi