Price tag/credit card surcharge

Q. Stephanie C. writes: to complain about a travel agency located in SM Megamall which allegedly charged her 5% more than the actual price of the airline ticket that she purchased using her credit card. When she advised the travel agency clerk that the said surcharge violated the Consumer Act of the Philippines, the clerk argued that services like carriage by airplane are not covered by the price tag requirement of the Consumer Act.

Stephanie C. wants to know if the clerk is correct.

A. The surcharge of 5% on the purchase made by Stephanie C. of an airline ticket using her credit card clearly violates Article 81 of the Consumer Act.

Article 81 provides: "It shall be unlawful to offer any consumer product for retail sale to the public without an appropriate price tag, label, or marking publicly displayed to indicate the price of each article, and said products shall not be sold at a price higher than that stated therein and without discrimination to all buyers x x x Provided further, That if consumer products for sale are too small or the nature of which makes it impractical to place a price tag thereon, a price list displayed at the nearest point where the products are displayed indicating the retail price of the same may suffice."

Although Article 81 referred to consumer products alone, there is no reason to exclude services such as carriage by airplane since the intent of the provision is to ensure that the consumer has an informed choice by requiring the visible placement of price tags or price lists. Furthermore, it would violate the equal clause of the Constitution if Article 81 would be interpreted to mean that its protection against discrimination is limited to buyers of consumer products, and that the same protection is not available to buyers of consumer services.

Q. Rovi P. writes: "I sent my television set to Miracle Repair Shop as there was neither picture nor sound coming out of it. After troubleshooting was done by the TV technician, I was informed that two parts had to be replaced. Estimated cost of the two parts was P800 and the labor charge of the technician was P250 for a total of P1,050.

"The technician demanded that I fully pay in advance the cost of the repair, inclusive of the cost of parts and labor.

"Although I was willing to pay in advance the cost of the replacement parts, I refused to advance in full the service or labor charge of the technician. I told the technician that I will just advance half of his labor charge, with the balance payable only after a satisfactory repair job is completed. Was I correct in doing this?

A. Section 2, Rule VII of the implementing rules and regulations of the Consumer Act provides: "Consumer repair services shall not be required to be fully paid in advance nor any downpayment to exceed 50% of the total cost of such services except when spare parts or materials have to be procured before any repair service can be done and such materials are identified and are for the account of the consumer."

This means the TV technician is entitled to demand from Rovi P. a downpayment of not more than 50% of the total labor charge of P250 in addition to the estimated cost of the replacement parts that need to be procured.

(You may send your consumer complaints and comments to the Bureau of Trade Regulation and Consumer Protection, DTI-Domestic Bldg., 361 Sen. Gil Puyat Ave., Makati City. You may also call us at our consumer hotlines 896-5740 or 890-4938. Our e-mail address is www.e-reklamo.net.ph)