REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Department of Trade and Industry

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION

JOSE FRANCISCO CATIPON

Complainant Appellee,

Appeal Case No. 2018-33

(FTEB ADM CASE No. CC-18-010)

HENRY’S PROFESSIONAL PHOTO

MKTG INC./ CAMERA SOUND INC.,
VICTORY WORLD TRADING INC.,
AND DJI, RC Victory World
Respondent-Appellants.
x----------------------------------------------x

COMMENT
(TO THE MEMORANDUM OF
APPEAL FILED BY RC VICTORY
WORLD TRADING INC)

Complainant Appellee JOSE FRANCISCO CATIPON (hereinafter,

“Complainant”) most respectfully states:

TIMELINESS

1. On _____________________, Complainant received a Copy of

the Order dated 16 March 2018 ordering the Complainant to submit within
fifteen (15) days a Comment to the undated Appeal Memorandum of Appeal
(“Appeal”) submitted by RC Victory World through Mr. Reniel Meñoza, duly
received by the Complainant on ___________.

2. Hence, the instant Comment is timely filed in accordance with

the Order of this Honorable Office.
 PROCEDURAL MATTERS

3. It is respectfully submitted before this Honorable Office that

Respondent’s Appeal shall not be given due course since it was filed beyond
the prescriptive period. According to the Department Administrative Order
No. 07 (2006) (the “DTI Rules”), the Appeal shall be taken within fifteen days
(15) days from receipt thereof. Considering that the Appeal was undated and
was filed only on 12 March 2008, the subject appeal should be dismissed for
being filed beyond the period of Appeal.

MERITS

4. Assuming but not conceding that the appeal of RC Victory may

be given due course, Complainant submits the following rebuttals on the
allegations of the Respondent-Appellant.

5. It is submitted that the unit was not purchased directly from RC

Victory but through their Authorized Dealer, Henrys Professional Photo
Marketing Inc/ Camera Sound Inc (“Henry’s”).

6. However, it was Henry’s who referred the Complainant to RC

Victory as the latter is the duly authorized repair agent. The Complainant
merely relied on this referral.

7. Despite the arguments propounded by Respondents regarding

the warranty provisions, the Respondents fail to consider that the battery
provided was defective from the date of purchase. The Complainant did not
benefit from the purchase due to this defect.

8. Nonetheless, it is incorrect to state that the product is out of

warranty since the warranty date based on the warranty documents is one
(1) year from date of purchase. Separate warranty provisions relating to
parts or any other limitation is not provided in said warrant document. 1
Moreover, the Complainant was not informed about any limitations, if any.
Since they are engaged in the business of distributing or selling these kind of
products where warranty provisions are important due to the fragility of
parts and components, the Complainant should have been apprised of any
limitations to the warranty clause.

1
See Position Paper filed 15 January 2018.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Complainant-Appellee respectfully pray that this Honorable

Office:

A. DENY the Appeal of the Respondent Appellant RC Victory since it was filed
out of time and on the merits;

B. DECLARE the Respondent-Appellant as having waived its right to file their

Appeal Memorandum to the Decision dated 5 February 2018.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Makati City, ___________ 2018

JOSE FRANCISCO CATIPON

Complainant-Appellee