G.R. No. 244242 , September 14, 2020
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PETITIONER, VS. NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

On October 16, 2007, Myrnanette M. Jarra purchased a 150-gram pack of Nestle Bear Brand Powdered Filled Milk. Upon opening it, she discovered live insect larvae inside, with the powder appearing yellowish and lumpy. She filed a complaint with the DOH Consumer Arbitration Office (CAO-NCR). The Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD) conducted a laboratory analysis, confirming the presence of live larvae and a strong stale odor, rendering the product unfit for human consumption. Consequently, the CAO-NCR found Nestle liable for distributing an adulterated product in violation of the Consumer Act ( R.A. No. 7394 ) and imposed fines and restitution. The DOH Secretary affirmed this decision on appeal, giving credence to BFAD’s technical expertise.
Nestle elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. The CA reversed the DOH, reasoning that the BFAD report did not establish that the adulteration occurred during Nestle’s manufacturing or handling process. It speculated that infestation could have happened during transit, storage by the vendor, or after the sale. The DOH then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting Nestle’s Petition for Certiorari and reversing the DOH’s finding of liability under the Consumer Act.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the DOH decision with modification. The Court clarified that a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy against jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion by a tribunal, not against mere errors of judgment. The DOH’s finding was based on substantial evidence—primarily the BFAD laboratory report which conclusively established the product was adulterated and unfit for consumption. The BFAD is presumed to possess technical expertise, and its factual findings are accorded great weight.
The CA committed reversible error by substituting its own judgment for that of the administrative agency. The legal logic is that under the Consumer Act, the act of selling an adulterated product is prohibited. The BFAD report provided substantial evidence that the product sold was adulterated. Nestle failed to present clear and convincing proof to rebut this presumption or to show that the DOH acted with grave abuse of discretion. The CA’s theory of possible post-manufacture infestation was speculative and unsupported by evidence. Therefore, the DOH decision was supported by substantial evidence and was within its authority. The Court, however, modified the restitution order to correctly reflect the specific product involved—one pack of Bear Brand milk—instead of the unrelated RC Cola originally ordered.