G.R. No. 202943 , March 25, 2015.
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, represented by SECRETARY ENRIQUE T. ONA, and THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (Formerly the Bureau of Food and Drugs), represented by ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF HEALTH NICOLAS B. LUTERO III, Officer-in-Charge, Petitioners, vs. PHILIP MORRIS PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC, Respondent.

FACTS

On November 19, 2008, respondent Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing, Inc. (PMPMI), through an advertising agency, applied with the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD, now FDA) for a sales promotion permit for its “Gear Up Promotional Activity” under Article 116 of the Consumer Act (RA 7394). After more than 15 days without formal action, PMPMI inquired and was verbally informed of a DOH Memorandum prohibiting tobacco promotional activities. On November 28, 2008, PMPMI, through another agency, filed a second application for its “Golden Stick Promotional Activity,” which the BFAD refused to accept outright based on a directive to no longer accept such applications from tobacco companies. In a letter dated January 5, 2009, the BFAD formally denied the Gear Up Promo application, citing instructions from the Undersecretary of Health that all promotions, advertisements, and sponsorships of tobacco products were prohibited as of July 1, 2008, under RA 9211 (Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003). PMPMI filed an administrative appeal with the DOH Secretary, arguing that RA 9211 only restricts, not prohibits, promotions, and that the denial violated its rights. The DOH denied the appeal in a Consolidated Decision dated April 30, 2009, affirming the BFAD’s action, ruling that promotion is inherent in advertising and sponsorship, which are completely banned, and citing the country’s obligations under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. PMPMI elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via certiorari and mandamus.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the authority of the DOH, through the BFAD, to regulate tobacco sales promotions under Article 116 in relation to Article 109 of RA 7394 had been impliedly repealed by RA 9211, which created the Inter-Agency Committee-Tobacco (IAC-Tobacco) with exclusive authority to administer and implement its provisions.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ascribing grave abuse of discretion upon the DOH when the latter held that RA 9211 has also completely prohibited tobacco promotions as of July 1, 2008.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision.
1. On the issue of authority, the Court ruled that the creation of the IAC-Tobacco under Section 29 of RA 9211, vested with the “exclusive power and function to administer and implement the provisions of this Act,” impliedly repealed the DOH’s authority under RA 7394 to regulate tobacco sales promotions. Section 39 of RA 9211, the repealing clause, states that all laws inconsistent with it are repealed. Since RA 9211 is a special law governing tobacco regulation, it prevails over the general provisions of the Consumer Act on sales promotions. Therefore, the DOH and BFAD no longer had the authority to deny PMPMI’s promotional permit applications; such authority resides exclusively with the IAC-Tobacco.
2. On the issue of prohibition, the Court ruled that the DOH committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that RA 9211 completely prohibits tobacco promotions. The law clearly distinguishes between “advertising,” “promotion,” and “sponsorship” as separate terms. Section 22 of RA 9211 explicitly phases out and prohibits tobacco advertising and sponsorship after July 1, 2008. In contrast, Section 23 only restricts tobacco promotions (e.g., requiring permits, prohibiting certain strategies like sampling) but does not impose a total ban. When the law is clear and free from ambiguity, there is no room for construction, only application. The DOH’s interpretation that promotion is subsumed under advertising and sponsorship, and thus also banned, contravenes the plain language of the statute.