DTI cites urgency in Montero SUA probe

The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) said there is no extension to the two-week deadline given to the probe panel to come up with its recommendations on the alleged sudden unintended acceleration (SUA) incidents involving the Montero Sport model.

“No, we are not changing our directive. There is no extension to the deadline,” said DTI Undersecretary Victorio Mario Dimagiba in his consumer-oriented radio program over DZMM on Saturday. This means the panel is expected to come up with its decision before Christmas.

Dimagiba has explained that the mandate under Article 10 of the Consumer Act is for the investigation panel to come up with a decision within two weeks because the issue concerns the safety of consumers.

Dimagiba likened this process to a TRO (temporary restraining order) by a court to call for some time in addressing a pressing issue.

In the meantime, the panel is considering the hiring of an independent third party, composed of technical experts, which will determine the safety issue raised or the SUA allegations against Montero Sport.

Dimagiba also emphasized that even without the technical experts report, the DTI has the power provided under the law to initiate a product recall even without notice and hearing, if it determines urgency of the situation.

“But here we still observe the general process of issuing a notice and hearing. We have exercised the general provision of the law rather than the exception,” he pointed out.

There are already three technical expert groups, including NHTSA and TUV Rhineland, being identified to determine the alleged safety issues against the popular sports utility model which has already sold 60,000 units locally.

On Friday, the DTI panel has witnessed the

technical tests of the Montero Sport at the Mitsubishi Motor Philippines plant in Sta. Rosa, Laguna.

But Dimagiba said it was not conclusive because the tests were done on only two units while there were 97 units that are subject of complaints of SUA incidents. The panel has also requested for more data from Mitsubishi.

Mitsubishi has been attributing all the alleged 97 SUA incidents to human error.

“These are 97 cases of human error, how do you overcome that. You cannot ignore that, we don’t need five SUAs to happen,” said Dimagiba, who is in charge of consumer welfare and protection at the DTI.

Earlier, Dimagiba hinted of a compulsory product recall before Christmas on the diesel-engine variants of the Montero Sport model sold in the country from 2010 to 2015.

The direction towards a product recall follows after DTI feels the offer by Mitsubishi Philippines of free check-up was “half baked.”

“If DTI issues a recall, it follows no one will buy the Montero until the test shows all electronic throttle control unit tested are okay. Recall is corrective action while suspension is preventive,” Dimagiba explained.

“Mitsubishi has the option to issue a voluntary recall. Its offer for free check-up is half baked,” he said.

While Dimagiba has acknowledged the administrative nightmare of a recall, as not all its dealers are equipped with the onboard diagnostic computer to conduct the tests, he said that the company can conduct the tests in batches.

MMPC’s failure to satisfy the SUA complaints, reaching 97 cases, as a whole, has created further negative impression on consumers. It risks facing a class suit as some complainants are thinking of resorting to this legal remedy, Dimagiba said.

A source said that should MMPC amend its offer for free check-up to compulsory check-up, “the story will change to their side.”

Article 10 of the Consumer Act is a provision against injurious, dangerous and unsafe products. It states “Whenever the departments find, by their own initiative or by petition of a consumer, that a consumer product is found to be injurious, unsafe or dangerous, it shall, after due notice and hearing, make the appropriate order for its recall, prohibition or seizure from public sale or distribution: Provided, That, in the sound discretion of the department it may declare a consumer product to be imminently injurious, unsafe or dangerous, and order is immediate recall, ban or seizure from public sale or distribution, in which case, the seller, distributor, manufacturer or producer thereof shall be afforded a hearing within forty-eight (48) hours from such order.

The ban on the sale and distribution of a consumer product adjudged injurious, unsafe or dangerous, or imminently injurious, unsafe or dangerous under the preceding paragraph shall stay in force until such time that its safety can be assured or measures to ensure its safety have been established.”