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, Director Dimagiba of the DTI’s Bureau of Trade Regulation and Consumer Protection wrote Universal Robina Corporation (URC) to ask why its ex-mill flour prices had not been reduced despite a decrease in certain cost factors. URC responded that the price difference reflected world wheat market price movements and covered other operational costs, including increased labor. Director Dimagiba, noting that wheat cost comprised 75% of flour production, instructed URC to reduce its ex-mill prices from PHP790.00 to PHP630.00-PHP680.00 per bag. Later, Director Dimagiba filed a Complaint against URC for profiteering under the Price Act ( Republic Act No. 7581 ), alleging URC’s price did not represent the flour’s “true worth” and praying for a fine and a price reduction order. This complaint was dismissed due to the absence of a certification against forum shopping. Subsequently, the DTI wrote URC again, noting its prices were higher than expected and inviting it to a meeting. In response, URC filed a petition for declaratory relief before the trial court, praying that the Price Act’s provision prohibiting profiteering be declared invalid for vagueness. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding no justiciable controversy and that it was prematurely filed. URC then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari on a pure question of law.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether a petition for declaratory relief is the proper remedy to challenge the constitutionality of the Price Act’s profiteering provision, and whether Section 5(2) of the Price Act constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power for being vague and lacking sufficient standards.

RULING

The Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Justice Lazaro-Javier agrees with the procedural aspect but disagrees with the substantive ruling of the Majority Decision.
On Procedure: The opinion concurs that an actual justiciable controversy existed for declaratory relief. Although the profiteering complaint was dismissed, a looming threat remained that URC would be subjected to another action. URC’s rights were affected by the DTI’s enforcement actions and threats, satisfying the requirement of a contrariety of rights. The petition was filed at the most opportune time; waiting until after a profiteering case was resolved would have rendered it moot.
However, the opinion dissents on the substantive constitutional ruling. It argues that declaratory relief was not the proper remedy to assail the constitutionality of the Price Act, as established in Araullo v. Aquino III. Constitutional questions should be resolved only when absolutely necessary and when raised in an appropriate case. The opinion further disagrees that Section 5(2) of the Price Act is unconstitutional for vagueness or undue delegation. The law provides sufficient standards by defining profiteering as selling basic necessities at a price “grossly in excess” of its “true worth” and by enumerating prima facie evidence of profiteering (e.g., no price tag, misrepresentation, adulteration, or a price increase of over 10% from the previous month). These guidelines, coupled with the requirement for the DTI to notify and hear the concerned party before liability attaches, provide adequate boundaries to prevent arbitrary enforcement and respect due process. Therefore, the provision does not constitute an undue delegation of legislative power.