Indigents exempted from paying filing fees

Dear PAO,
I am writing for my mother whose date of birth was erroneously entered in their marriage contract. To correct the date, my mother has to file a Petition for Correction of Entry in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar. Is there a chance that my mother can be exempted from paying the fees for the filing of the petition?
Chloe

Dear Chloe,
The enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9048 simplified the process of correcting erroneous entries in the civil registry, which are regarded as typographical or clerical errors. Civil registrars and consul generals were authorized by the said law to correct these erroneous entries. This is according to Section 1 thereof, which was amended by R.A. No. 10172, which reads as follows:

“SECTION 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of First Name or Nickname. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nickname, the day and month in the date of birth or sex of a person where it is patently clear that there was a clerical or typographical error or mistake in the entry, which can be corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul general in accordance with the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations.”

Assuming that the error in your parents’ marriage contract is clerical or typographical error, indeed a petition before the Local Civil Registrar may be filed to correct the same. However, a fee shall be collected before the petition is acted upon by the said officer. To be exempt from the payment of the said fee, it must be proven that the petitioner is indigent. This is according to Section 8 of the said law as amended by R.A. Act No. 10172,which provides:

“SEC. 8. Payment of Fees. The city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general shall be authorized to collect reasonable fees as a condition for accepting the petition. An indigent petitioner shall be exempt from the payment of the said fee.

xxx”

In the same vein, an indigent petitioner refers to a destitute, needy and poor individual who is certified as such by the social welfare and development office of the city/municipal government. (2.7, Rule 2, Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2001, Rules and Regulations Governing the Implementation of Republic Act No. 9048)

Based on the foregoing discussion, to be exempted from paying the required filing fee for the abovementioned petition, your mother has to prove that she is indigent. This can be done through a certification to be issued by the local social welfare and development office in your locality, certifying among other things that your mother is indigent.

Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated.

We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.

Facebook wins dismissal of $15-B users’ privacy suit

Facebook Inc. won dismissal of a $15-billion lawsuit accusing the company of secretly tracking the Internet activity of its users after they log off.

US District Judge Edward J. Davila in San Jose, California, on Friday agreed with Facebook’s argument that case should be dismissed because subscribers didn’t specify how they were harmed. The judge, who took more than three years to issue his ruling after hearing arguments in the case, said the users could refile most of their claims in a revised lawsuit.

Facebook users alleged in a 2012 complaint that while they may have agreed to the company’s installation of “cookie” files on their computers to track and transmit their Web browsing, they didn’t consent to such monitoring after logging out of the social network. The lawsuit consolidated similar complaints filed on behalf of US residents who subscribed to Facebook from May 2010 to September 2011 in 10 states, including California, Texas and Alabama.

Facebook, the world’s most popular social-networking service, has been scrutinized by regulators in the US and Europe over how it uses subscribers’ private information. The company has also been hit with multiple privacy lawsuits, from a complaint that it scans users’ private e-mail messages for targeted advertising to a claim that its use of facial- recognition technology has “amassed the world’s largest privately held database of consumer biometric data.”

In the San Jose case, the plaintiffs accused Facebook of violating the US Wiretap Act by monitoring their online activity while they weren’t logged on. They also accused Facebook of improperly profiting from their information.

‘Realistic’ harm

The judge said the users failed to “adequately connect” the value of the data collected by Facebook “to a realistic economic harm or loss.” Specifically, the plaintiffs failed to show “they personally lost the opportunity to sell their information or that the value of their information was somehow diminished after it was collected by Facebook,” Davila said.

Davila gave the plaintiffs until November 30 to revise their claims, including invasion of privacy and alleged violations of the Wiretap Act. That law provides for damages of as much as $100 a violation per day for each Facebook user, according to the complaint. Based on an estimate of 150 million affected users, the plaintiffs calculated potential damages of $15 billion.

A representative of Menlo Park, California-based Facebook didn’t immediately respond to an e-mail after regular business hours on  Friday seeking comment on the ruling. Three lawyers for the plaintiffs also didn’t respond to phone and e-mail messages.

Matthew Brown, a lawyer who represented Facebook at a 2012 hearing before Davila, told the judge that the users’ complaint suffers from an “utter lack of allegations of any injury to these particular named plaintiffs.”

Brown argued that the plaintiffs failed to identify what web sites they visited, what kind of data or information was collected or whether Facebook used it or disclosed it to anyone else.

source:  Business Mirror

Deceptive sales practice violates consumer law

Dear PAO,

When I was walking in a certain mall in Taguig City (Metro Manila), I chanced upon two individuals who introduced themselves as sales clerks from a particular company. They told me that I won some of their products. These agents brought me to their booth where they kept on congratulating me and also showing the products that I had won. They wrapped these products so that I could bring them home, but when I was about to take these prizes, one of the agents told me that I must first buy one of their products, which was too expensive. I found it impractical, so I told the agent that I was no longer interested in the prizes. Is this type of marketing strategy legal?
Melanio

Dear Melanio,
What you have narrated is a clear case of deceptive sales act or practice. You can file your complaint with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). This is in violation of Article 50 of Republic Act (RA) 7394, or the Consumer Act of the Philippines. The provision states, “A deceptive act or practice by a seller or supplier in connection with a consumer transaction violates this Act whether it occurs before, during or after the transaction. An act or practice shall be deemed deceptive whenever the producer, manufacturer, supplier or seller, through concealment, false representation of fraudulent manipulation, induces a consumer to enter into a sales or lease transaction of any consumer product or service. Without limiting the scope of the above paragraph, the act or practice of a seller or supplier is deceptive when it represents that:

a) a consumer product or service has the sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, ingredients, accessories, uses or benefits it does not have;

b) a consumer product or service is of a particular standard, quality, grade, style or model when in fact it is not;

c) a consumer product is new, original or unused, when in fact, it is in a deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, reclaimed or second-hand state;

d) a consumer product or service is available to the consumer for a reason that is different from the fact;

e) a consumer product or service has been supplied in accordance with the previous representation when in fact it is not;

f) a consumer product or service can be supplied in a quantity greater than the supplier intends;

g) a service, or repair of a consumer product is needed when in fact it is not;

h) a specific price advantage of a consumer product exists when in fact it is not;

i) the sales act or practice involves or does not involve a warranty, a disclaimer of warranties, particular warranty terms or other rights, remedies or obligations if the indication is false; and

j)    the seller or supplier has a sponsorship, approval, or affiliation he does not have.”

Another provision of the law that was also violated was Article 52, which provides that “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 gross one-sided in favor of the producer, manufacturer, distributor, supplier or seller.”

Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated.

We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net