The game of laws is a battle of wits and cunning. Both parties argue their respective side to win the case. In the end, however, it’s the court that will ultimately settle the issue—hopefully, wisely and fairly.

Take for example the misfortune of ending up with a defective brand-new vehicle. If you ask the customer, the car should be replaced by another new unit. Either that or the money should be totally refunded.

If you ask the dealer, however, it should at least be given four chances to repair the unit before being compelled to replace the vehicle.

In using a resolved case between Toyota Balintawak and a customer, the Supreme Court has now formally shed light on the issue to form a basis for future use. Because we don’t want to inadvertently cause confusion in narrating the story, we will share the legalese verbatim from the press statement:

Buyers of defective brand-new motor vehicles may choose to enforce their rights under any available law.

The Supreme Court’s Second Division, in a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio Kho, Jr., ruled that consumers with brand-new motor vehicle issues may avail of the remedies under the Philippine Lemon Law, the Consumer Act, or any other applicable law.

In 2016, Marilou Tan (Marilou) bought a Toyota Fortuner from Toyota Balintawak, Inc. (TBI). While driving home after the purchase, her husband noticed a jerky movement whenever the transmission changed gears.

After a mechanical inspection, TBI informed Marilou that the transmission assembly needed to be replaced and/or the Engine Control Unit (ECU) reprogrammed at no extra cost. But Marilou refused, demanding instead that the vehicle be replaced, or she be refunded. TBI, however, argued that under Republic Act No. (RA) 10642 or the Philippine Lemon Law (Lemon Law), TBI was allowed to make up to four repair attempts before replacing the vehicle.

The Lemon Law covers brand-new motor vehicles purchased in the Philippines reported by a consumer to be defective within 12 months from the date of original delivery or up to 20,000 kilometers of operation, whichever comes first.

Marilou filed a complaint with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), citing RA 7394 or the Consumer Act of the Philippines (Consumer Act). Under the law, consumers have the option to request either a replacement unit or an immediate refund if a defect cannot be corrected within 30 days.

During the pendency of the proceedings, Marilou voluntarily brought the vehicle to TBI for ECU reprogramming, which addressed the shift shock problem.

The DTI later ruled in favor of Marilou and ordered TBI to either replace the vehicle or reimburse the amount paid. TBI sought to nullify the DTI rulings before the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA ruled in favor of TBI. It held that the Consumer Act and the Lemon Law are conflicting because the first law gives the supplier 30 days to correct the defect, while the second law allows the manufacturer, distributor, or dealer at least four separate repair attempts.

Since the controversy involved a brand-new motor vehicle, the CA ruled that the Lemon Law, and not the Consumer Act, was applicable. The Lemon Law specifically applies to brand-new vehicles, while the Consumer Act covers durable and non-durable consumer products in general. As a rule, a special law prevails over a general law.

Without Marilou’s participation, the DTI Secretary filed the present petition with the Supreme Court.

While acknowledging that the case had been resolved due to the repair of the vehicle, the Court took the opportunity to settle the issue to guide future disputes. It held that the Lemon Law is not an exclusive remedy. It said:

“[T]here is nothing that prevents a consumer from availing of the remedies under RA 7394 [Consumer Act] or any other law for that matter even if the subject of the complaint is a brand-new vehicle…RA 10642 [Lemon Law] is an alternative remedy granted to the consumer and the consumer is free to choose to enforce his or her rights under RA 7394 or any other law.”

However, the Court dismissed the petition because the DTI Secretary was not the proper party to file the case.

The Supreme Court took the opportunity to settle the issue to guide future disputes. It held that the Lemon Law is not an exclusive remedy

If you want to read the document in its detailed entirety, refer here.

So it’s clear: A customer who gets a defective brand-new vehicle has the option to avail of any law and not just the Lemon Law, which seems to favor the dealer with four chances to repair the unit. With the Consumer Act, while still giving the dealer a chance to repair the unit, the period to accomplish the task is set at a definitive 30 days.

Expect this decision to now help in hastening the process of restoring defective new vehicles.