G.R. No. 203353 , February 14, 2023.
UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (“DTI”), THE DTI SECRETARY, ZENAIDA C. MAGLAYA, IN HER CAPACITY AS DTI UNDERSECRETARY, AND VICTORIO MARIO A. DIMAGIBA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR FOR DTI’S BUREAU OF TRADE REGULATIONS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the validity of: (1) the definition of “profiteering” in Section 5(2) of the Price Act for being vague; (2) Executive Order No. 913, s. of 1983, and Section 5, Rule IX of Administrative Order No. 07-06 of the Department of Trade and Industry for being an invalid exercise of quasi-legislative power; and (3) all issuances, acts, or proceedings based on these issuances. The ponencia denies the petition, primarily finding the offense of “profiteering” not vague. The Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Justice Caguioa addresses procedural matters and the substantive issue of vagueness.

ISSUE

1. Whether the requirement of an “actual case or controversy” for the exercise of judicial power necessitates a showing of actual harm or injury to the party seeking relief.
2. Whether the doctrine of transcendental importance serves as an exception to the requirement of a justiciable controversy.
3. Whether an action for declaratory relief is appropriate to challenge the constitutionality or validity of a statute or regulation absent an actual breach.
4. Whether the definition of “profiteering” in Section 5(2) of the Price Act is void for vagueness.

RULING

1. The requirement of an “actual case or controversy” does not necessitate actual harm or injury. An actual case or controversy exists where there is a “contrariety of legal rights susceptible of judicial resolution.” The existence of an immediate or threatened injury as a result of the act complained of suffices to satisfy ripeness. Confining the framework to actual harm would preclude the Court from taking cognizance of petitions that establish a patent violation of the Constitution or a statute, or a prima facie showing of grave abuse of discretion, even if the questions are purely legal.
2. The doctrine of transcendental importance is not an exception to the requirement of a justiciable controversy. It may justify the relaxation of technical rules on standing and hierarchy of courts, and may also justify adjudication of a case rendered moot and academic by a supervening event. However, it cannot serve as a basis for exercising judicial power when there is no actual or live controversy at the onset, as this would render the decision an advisory opinion.
3. An action for declaratory relief is filed before a breach or violation of the challenged act. Rule 63 of the Rules of Court allows a party to resort to this remedy to determine any question of validity or construction arising from a statute or governmental regulation, requiring the participation of the Solicitor General. However, an actual case or controversy or the “ripening seeds” thereof is still mandatory. Universal Robina Corporation was justified in initiating the action, as there was a ripening seed of controversy by virtue of the DTI’s continued inquiry on the prices for its ex-mill flour.
4. The definition of “profiteering” in Section 5(2) of the Price Act is vague. The “true worth” of a basic necessity or prime commodity, and the determination that the price is “grossly in excess” of such true worth, are subject to the personal predilections or varying criteria of the regulating agency. As such, it fails to give proper notice on what conduct to avoid.