I. Not entitled.

Complainant alleged that the cause of the squibload was due to the hidden
defects of the said firearm. In his opening statement, he narrated respondent as a certified
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) which is true, Respondent is certified to
operate a management system that has been assessed as conforming to ISO 9001:2015, its
scope of activities is under Design and Manufacture of Firearms and Ammunition.

II. Respondent not guilty of violating the Consumer Act and its provision on Consumer product
and quality as a manufacturer. the grounds for its liability are discussed below and
considering that the firearm already undergone 80 rounds of firing before the malfunction
happened. which runs counter to the elements set forth by the law. The 80 rounds were
declared by herein complainant in the Customer Complaint Form provided by ARMSCOR
Service Center Inc. last November 8, 2021 when he brought the said gun. (see costumer
complaint center, inc.) the Supreme Court discussed in its ruling in Autozentrum v. Sps
Bernardo (G.R. No. 214122, June 08, 2016) defined the product to be considered defective
and its elements under Art. 97 of Consumer Act provision.

“The relevant provisions of RA 7394 or the Consumer Act of the Philippines are:
Article 97. Liability for the Defective Products. – Any Filipino or foreign
manufacturer, producer, and any importer, shall be liable for redress,
independently of fault, for damages caused to consumers by defects resulting
from design, manufacture, construction, assembly and erection, formulas and
handling and making up, presentation or packing of their products, as well as for
the insufficient or inadequate information on the use and hazards thereof.”

 Respondent ARMSCOR is ISO certified. All of its products undergo a stringent process with
regards to the quality of each product before its presentation to the market. To prove its process,
respondent is attaching a blank copy of monitoring to form as an integral part of the position
paper.

 Also, the Supreme Court set the elements before a product can be considered as defective, under
the same case mentioned in the preceding paragraph which it states and I quote:
“A product is defective when it does not offer the safety rightfully expected of it,
taking relevant circumstances into consideration, including but not limited to:

a) presentation of product;
b) use and hazards reasonably expected of it;
c) the time it was put into circulation.

A product is not considered defective because another better-quality product has been placed in
the market.”

 It also stated the grounds were the manufacturer, builder, producer or importer will not be liable
if it can show evidence on the grounds stated which quoted below to wit:
“The manufacturer, builder, producer or importer shall not be held liable when it
evidences:
 a. that it did not place the product on the market
b. that although it did place the product on the market such product has no
defect;
c. that the consumer or a third party is solely at fault. 11 (Emphasis supplied)”
III. Respondent is not guilty of violating the Consumers Act and its Provision on Deceptive,
Unfair, Unconscionable Acts/Practices as a manufacturer. the jurisprudence below defines the
elements considered to be deceptive. Respondent, being an international company, wherein
its products are disposed worldwide undergo a much strict protocols in monitoring the quality
of its production which a high set of standards were set by the Quality Assurance
Department. The supreme Court, in its recent ruling in the case of Autozentrum v. sps
Bernardo, Jr. (G.R. No. 214122, June 08, 2016), it defines the act to be considered deceptive.
Its declaration was stated below to wit:

“RA 7394 specifically provides that an act of a seller is deceptive when it represents to a

consumer that a product is new, original or unused, when in fact, it is deteriorated,
altered, reconditioned, reclaimed or second-hand. A representation is not confined to
words or positive assertions; it may consist as well of deeds, acts or artifacts of a nature
calculated to mislead another and thus allow the fraud-feasor to obtain an undue
advantage.12 Failure to reveal a fact which the seller is, in good faith, bound to disclose
may generally be classified as a deceptive act due to its inherent capacity to
deceive.13 Suppression of a material fact which a party is bound in good faith to disclose
is equivalent to a false representation. 14
IV. Whether the Respondent is guilty of violating the Consumer Act and its provision on
deceptive, unfair, and unconscionable acts/practices. Respondent, being a manufacturer of
Guns and ammunition worldwide and a certified ISO 9001:2015 also considering the strict
implementation under of ISO guidelines, which stature is of a high standard and is well-
known throughout the world will take the risk of destroying its image by doing such act
would likely be improbable by herein respondent of doing. To have a clear understanding of
such provision, the Supreme Court in its ruling in AOWA v DTI ( G.R. 189655 (4/13/11) which
it declared as stated below to wit:
V.
ART. 52. Unfair or Unconscionable Sales Act or Practice. — An unfair or unconscionable
sales act or practice by a seller or supplier in connection with a consumer transaction
violates this Chapter whether it occurs before, during or after the consumer transaction.
An act or practice shall be deemed unfair or unconscionable whenever the producer,
manufacturer, distributor, supplier or seller, by taking advantage of the consumer's
physical or mental infirmity, ignorance, illiteracy, lack of time or the general conditions
of the environment or surroundings, induces the consumer to enter into a sales or lease
transaction grossly inimical to the interests of the consumer or grossly one-sided in
favor of the producer, manufacturer, distributor, supplier or seller.
In determining whether an act or practice is unfair and unconscionable, the following
circumstances shall be considered:
 a) that the producer, manufacturer, distributor, supplier or seller took advantage of the
inability of the consumer to reasonably protect his interest because of his inability to
understand the language of an agreement, or similar factors;
b) that when the consumer transaction was entered into, the price grossly exceeded the
price at which similar products or services were readily obtainable in similar transaction
by like consumers;
c) that when the consumer transaction was entered into, the consumer was unable to
receive a substantial benefit from the subject of the transaction;
d) that when the consumer transaction was entered into, the seller or supplier was
aware that there was no reasonable probability or payment of the obligation in full by
the consumer; and
e) that the transaction that the seller or supplier induced the consumer to enter into
was excessively one-sided in favor of the seller or supplier.

VI. Whether the Respondent is guilty of violating the Consuer Act and its provision on Defective
Products and Service Imperfection – generally applicable to the seller. manufacturer can
only be held liable if it can be shown to be defective before the sale - G.R. 232688 4/26/21
(Mazda Quezon ave v. Caruncho)

Article 100 of Consumers act for product imperfections:

- Art. 100, Liability for Product and service Imperfection. x x x x

XXXXXX

If the consumer opts for the alternative under sub-paragraph (a) of the second paragraph of this
Article, and replacement of the product is not possible, it may be replaced by another of a
different kind, mark or model: Provided, that any difference in price may result thereof shall be
supplemented or reimbursed by the party which caused the damage, without prejudice to the
provisions of the second, third and fourth paragraphs of this Article.

3. (IV) Whether the Respondent is guilty of violating the Consumer Act and its provision on consumer
product and service warranties. The sample cases below are discussing the implied warranty. I did not
include the express warranty as I do not have information as to G.R. 211175, 1/18/17 (Atty. Geromo v.
La Paz Housing)

- Under the Civil Code, the vendor shall be answerable for warranty against hidden defects on the thing
sold under the following circumstances:

Art. 1561. The vendor shall be responsible for warranty against the hidden defects 

XXXXXXX

but said vendor shall not be answerable for patent defects or those which may be visible, or for those
which are not visible if the vendee is an expert who, by reason of this trade or profession, should have
known them. (Emphasis supplied)
Art. 1566. The vendor is responsible to the vendee for any hidden faults or defects in the thing sold,
even though he was not aware thereof.

This provision shall not apply if the contrary has been stipulated and the vendor was not aware of the
hidden faults or defects in the thing sold.

4. What are hidden defects? (Elements to qualify hidden defects)

When we talk about hidden defects, also called redhibitory defects, we refer to those defects that can
have the thing object of the sale and that have to fulfill a series of requirements. These requirements
are the ones that will allow us to qualify the defects of our purchase as hidden defects and to exercise
the redhibitory action successfully. These have been repeatedly stated by the Supreme Court, as for
example in the STS (Supreme Court Sentence) of October 17, 2015, and are as follows:

1. The defects must be hidden: this means that they are not recognized or easily recognizable by
the buyer.

2. It must be a defect present prior to the sale: this is so because the seller is not liable for defects
that have occurred after the sale. The thing has to be delivered in the state in which it was
when the contract was perfected. This is the reason why the buyer must not only prove the
existence of the defect, but also that it existed at the time of the perfection of the contract.

3. The defect must be serious: that is to say, the defect must involve a certain importance. In this
sense, if the buyer had known it, he would not have acquired the thing or would have done so
paying less for it.

- G.R. No. L-51377 June 27, 1988 (Investment & Devt. Inc v CA) – Hidden defects can only be
invoked under implied warranty and the defects existed at the time of the sale.

“X x x x on the basis of an implied warranty against hidden faults or defects under Article 1547,
sub-paragraph (2) inasmuch as the term "hidden faults or defects" pertains only to those that
make the object of the sale unfit for the use for which it was intended at the time of the sale.”

6. G.R. 189655 AOWA v. DTI (4/13/11) Liability of Manufacturer

ART. 52. Unfair or Unconscionable Sales Act or Practice. — An unfair or unconscionable sales act or
practice by a seller or supplier in connection with a consumer transaction violates this Chapter whether
it occurs before, during or after the consumer transaction. An act or practice shall be deemed unfair or
unconscionable whenever the producer, manufacturer, distributor, supplier or seller, by taking
advantage of the consumer's physical or mental infirmity, ignorance, illiteracy, lack of time or the
general conditions of the environment or surroundings, induces the consumer to enter into a sales or
lease transaction grossly inimical to the interests of the consumer or grossly one-sided in favor of the
producer, manufacturer, distributor, supplier or seller.

In determining whether an act or practice is unfair and unconscionable, the following circumstances
shall be considered:
a) that the producer, manufacturer, distributor, supplier or seller took advantage of the inability of the
consumer to reasonably protect his interest because of his inability to understand the language of an
agreement, or similar factors;

b) that when the consumer transaction was entered into, the price grossly exceeded the price at which
similar products or services were readily obtainable in similar transaction by like consumers;

c) that when the consumer transaction was entered into, the consumer was unable to receive a
substantial benefit from the subject of the transaction;

d) that when the consumer transaction was entered into, the seller or supplier was aware that there was
no reasonable probability or payment of the obligation in full by the consumer; and

e) that the transaction that the seller or supplier induced the consumer to enter into was excessively
one-sided in favor of the seller or supplier.