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

On May 25, 2010, DTI Director Victorio Mario A. Dimagiba wrote to Universal Robina Corporation (URC) inquiring why its ex-mill flour prices had not decreased despite reductions in cost factors like international wheat prices, freight, foreign exchange, and tariffs. URC responded that its price movements reflected world wheat prices and increased operational costs. Director Dimagiba replied, noting wheat prices were similar in 2007 and 2010 but flour prices were higher in 2010, and instructed URC to reduce its ex-mill prices to ₱630₱680 per bag. Director Dimagiba later filed a profiteering complaint against URC and other local flour millers before the DTI under Republic Act No. 7581 (the Price Act). On June 15, 2010, URC received a DTI Preliminary Order to reduce its selling price while the case was pending. This order was later lifted after the flour millers’ association declared price reductions. The profiteering complaint was eventually dismissed for lack of a certification against forum shopping. Subsequently, the DTI wrote to URC again, observing that ex-mill prices were increasing and inviting URC to a meeting. In response, URC filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), praying for a declaration that: (1) the Price Act’s prohibition against profiteering is void for vagueness; (2) Executive Order No. 913 and Rule IX, Section 5 of DTI Administrative Order No. 07 (regarding preliminary orders) are invalid exercises of quasi-legislative power and violate due process; and (3) all issuances, acts, or proceedings based on these are invalid. The RTC dismissed the petition, finding no justiciable controversy and that it was prematurely filed. URC’s motion for reconsideration was denied. URC then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should resolve the constitutional challenges raised by URC regarding the Price Act’s profiteering provision and the related DTI issuances, considering the requirements of justiciability and the specific circumstances of the case.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition. The Court held that the case had been rendered moot and academic by the dismissal of the underlying profiteering complaint and the lifting of the Preliminary Order. The Court declined to apply the exceptions to the mootness doctrine, finding that URC failed to demonstrate a grave constitutional violation or a paramount public interest requiring resolution. The Court emphasized its policy of judicial restraint and deference to the political branches on matters of economic policy. It found that URC’s facial challenge to the Price Act’s profiteering provision was improper, as the law was not vague on its face and URC did not claim it was incapable of any valid application. The Court also noted that the challenged DTI rules on preliminary orders were a valid exercise of delegated quasi-legislative power, providing sufficient standards and adhering to due process requirements. The RTC’s dismissal of the Petition for Declaratory Relief was upheld, as no actual, ripe controversy requiring judicial intervention existed.