The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has dismissed the profiteering case filed against 11 flour millers for failure on the part of the complainant, the Bureau of Trade Regulation and Consumer Protection, to substantiate its charges by failing to submit pertinent documents.

In a decision dated July 29, DTI adjudication officer Ma. Carolina I. Carbonell said the complainant failed to submit the essential documents/requisites for filing a verified complaint or formal charge against the flour millers under Section 2 and Section 3, of Rule V of Department Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 2006.

“The absence of any one, some, or all of the above shall be a ground for the motu propio dismissal without prejudice of the case,” the order said.

The requirement of submitting a certification of non-forum shopping upon the filing of a complaint, is required under Section 4, Rule III of DAO No. 07, Series of 2006.

During the hearing, respondents jointly raised, among others, whether or not an alternative mechanism of mediation should be made available to them and that clarifications be made relative to the nature of the proceeding and whether or not the complaint should be dismissed in view of the lack of the essential requirement of a “certification of non-forum shopping” pursuant to Section 4, Rule III and Section 3 Rule V of Department Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 2006.

On the first issue, although the Adjudication Officer finds no express prohibition in applying the mechanism of mediation, it noted that mediation proceedings are undertaken with a view to having the parties reach an agreement or amicable settlement over the issues of the case.

However, such agreement, “shall not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy (Section 3, Rule X of the same Department Administrative Order).”

It can be seen from Section 2 of the Price Act, that the said law was enacted to pursue the public policy of ensuring, “the availability of basic necessities and prime commodities at reasonable prices at all times without denying legitimate business a fair return on investment.” Thus, the enforcement and implementation of the provisions of the Price Act are imbued with public policy considerations, that may not be subject to mediation proceedings. Further, the Complainant, as Director of the Bureau of Trade Regulation and Consumer Protection, is not a private party which may waive its, or enter into a compromise over, rights which properly belong not to the government office which it represents, but to the general public.

However, as to the second issue, Carbonell cited Section 4 (a) and (b) Rule III of Department Administrative Order 7, Series of 2006, states that: (a) Upon the filing of the complaint, the complainant or the duly authorized officer filing the formal charge, as the case may be, shall certify under oath therein or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that the complainant or office of agency concerned has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issue in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days there from to the Adjudication Officer before whom his aforesaid complaint or formal charge is pending.

(b) The failure to comply with the foregoing requirement shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or of the formal charge, but shall be cause for the motu proprio dismissal without prejudice of the case by the Adjudication Officer.”