By past 1 PM, our third (3rd) Admin Hearing was finished, the merit of the case was being avoided to be discussed, but of course, I tried my best to input something out of the grueling circumstance. Afterwards, outside, the respondent's lawyer has promised to stop his Collection Department and agencies sending dunning messages and collecting from me.
Lesson learned, if there is an affidavit to be submitted, make sure you have it in 10 or 11 copies, notarized, so that you can just submit it personally to the respondent's representative, have it signed, and later on to the Secretariat on the ground floor for receiving, stamping, etc. If you are given a chance to formalize and normalize your documents, meaning, complete it, you might have experienced below or did not continue your fight.
By 3:15 PM I've gone from NTC to SSS for personal concerns and possible free Notary Public but SSS Legal Office does not notarize verification and does not notarize for free. I am unsure if I was talking to the actual lawyer or clerk.
I rode a tricycle to City Hall of Quezon City, and walked a long way carrying my heavy papers to Justice Hall, rode the elevator and had finally had my Complaint Letter notarized.
I was asked by the tricycle driver P40.00, from City Hall to NTC, but from SSS to City Hall, it was just P20.00! I requested the Security Guard to take note on his logbook the tricycle's plate number as he saw how I was treated.
By 5:15 PM, I went to and fro the NTC, and at the Secretariat, I was instructed to have one of the copies sent to the respondent via Post Office before they can receive the rest of the copies.
Going to BIR, the rain started to drizzle, but my budget was so tight, I walked about a 100 meters away from NTC. The Post Office was inside the BIR building, they were about to wrap up before closing, but they were accommodating and have a good disposition, so, my frustration faded. I paid two mails for PLDT and Smart copies of my notarized Complaint Affidavit! I got two coded stickers of proof to be used later on by the Secretariat.
By 5:30 PM, I walked back to NTC while the rain kept pouring. I went up and down the NTC Legal Branch and the Secretariat to submit the photocopies, all in all I had 11 copies, two already mailed with stickers of proof attached by the Secretariat on the original copy left, and stamped everything accordingly, including the 7 photocopies, one for myself.
During the third Hearing earlier, I almost succumb to frustrations, because I have limited resources to continue this fight, and as it was reiterated to me, I was already seeing how many travels, photocopies, and affidavits will be expected of me. I am representing myself. I have no lawyer.
With all gratitude to everyone, I am looking forward to the reply of the respondents. So, to those who are yet to file their complaint at NTC, don't fret, I am trying my best to provide you of the big picture, if not, my ongoing experience. Be ready and prepared, by not prolonging your agony, because the longer you waited, the longer your statements will be, more resources will be expected for you to shed.
I was home by around 11 PM.
 |
| Posted on 16th July, 2020 |
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
National Telecommunications
Commission
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
BIR Road, East Triangle, Diliman, Quezon City
MR. ELMAN __________
Complainant,
-versus- ADMIN. CASE NO. 2019-066
For: Violation of the following: Republic Act No. 7394, series of 1992,
known as the Consumer Act of the Philippines (“Consumer Act”) Article 50 (a, b,
d, e, f, i, j), 52 (a-e), 74, 102 (a-c), 103, 104, 105, 106, 108; 110, 164 (c),
;
DOJ, Office for Competition, Advisory Opinion No. 02 (Series
of 2014) on "Unlimited" Internet Offers;
NTC Memorandum Circular 07-08-2015 80% ISP Broadband Service
Reliability, NTC Memorandum Circular No. 05-06-2007;
RA 7925 or the Public Telecommunications Policy Act of 1995
or Public Telecommunications Policy Act of the Philippines;
1987 Constitution Sec 9, Art XVI;
Civil Code Art 1170;
Republic Act No. 10173 (Data Privacy Act of
2012) CHAPTER 1 (d), Sec 14, 29, 32 (a), CHAPTER 7 (b);
Etc. Please see Email Complaint Trails
For: Denial / Noncompliance of Approved and signed 2 FYAs
for Correction of subscriptions plan by management; etc.
MR. MANUEL V. PANGILINAN;
PHILIPPINE
LONG DISTANCE COMPANY (PLDT)
and
SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. / PLDT-SMART;
Represented
by ATTY. JUAN ANTONIO R. LOPEZ
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------------------x
Complaint
Hon.
Rebeca G. Millena
Hearing
Officer, Legal Department, National
Telecommunications Commission
Your
Honor,
I, Elman ______,
complainant, respectfully SUBMIT this “Complaint
Letter” as COMPLIANCE with the Order which undersigned was directed
to file a written Complaint with Atty. Epifania Pajel-Cruz
as substitute hearing officer for the 2nd Hearing, August
6, 2019, on or before the 3rd Hearing on August 28, 2019, (However, it is to be noted that on the first
summons by NTC Legal Branch OIC-Director Atty. Ella Blanca B. Lopez, future
respondents' counsel, Atty. Juan Antonio R. Lopez failed to provide, when
required to file and serve his Answer to the Complaint (copy of which was
served even, evident with the
prior replies, of Special Accounts Management (SAM) comprised first by Ms.
Mariz, Online SAM PLDT-Smart, that "...FYA rebates were not
granted..." on email dated January 2,
2019; and with of Ms. Michelle
XXXXX, Manager, and Ms. Weleen XXXXX; Specialist, who appeared during the NTC
Mediation on June 4, 2019) within fifteen (15) days after service, etc.,
on the 1st hearing last July 15, 2019, but prayed for another Complaint Letter.
Unfortunately, complainant did not receive the said summons, thus not present.
On the second hearing, her honor went to Singapore, whilst NTC CWPD OIC Atty.
Maria Xandralyn M. Molina that time not around to observe, and the summons'
instruction was amiss as respondent was ordered to file a written complaint;
whilst Atty. Lopez replied verbally that his Specialist texted him that
complainant didn't pay his monthly service fees since April 2017, yet
complainant has no obligations to them since October 10, 2019 with last payment
on October, 2018, months after lock-in period expired.)
"NTC, Memorandum Circular No.
05-06-2007 that further explains the agency's consumer protection guidelines. This policy was created in response to
request for clearer guidelines on consumer complaint handling that extends to
services of telecommunication entities, value-added service (VAS)
providers, like Internet service
connection, mobile phone and Internet-related prepaid services, among
others. Consumer rights as stated in the circular include: Right ... Consumers are
expected to file a complaint first with their service providers and keep
records of correspondence and phone calls made. If the complaint is not
addressed within 30 days, the consumer has the right to escalate this to the
National Telecommunications Commission by filling up a complaint form. As this
is still a new policy, it will take time before it gets updated and will be
highly dependent on actual experience by consumers in going through the
process. I look forward to your insight. Telcos
warned vs misleading 'unli internet' by Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News Posted at
Dec 13 2014 12:31 AM | Updated as of Dec 13 2014 09:18 AM
state
that:
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, complainant by himself, despite of injustice he further suffered for
delays the above avoidable circumstances, and unto this Honorable Commission,
most respectfully avers:
1.
Complainant is Elman _____ of legal age,
Filipino citizen and resident _________________________________, Cavite. He may
be served with notices and other processes of this Honorable Commission through
his address.
2.
Respondents on the other hand, are public service corporations or public
telecommunications entity (PTE), offering telecommunications or digital and
internet subscriptions services headed by MANUEL V. PANGILINAN represented by
Atty. Juan Antonio R. Lopez with main address at LAWSUIT MANAGEMENT DIVISION,
PLDT 9/F Makati General Office Building, Legaspi cor. Dela Rosa Sts., Legaspi
Village, Makati City 1229 where summons and other Administrative processes may
be served through PLDT-Smart, and SMART Telecommunications, Inc., 12/F Rufino
Pacific 6784 Ayala Avenue, Makti City, 1226 or Main Offices in accordance with
the Rules of this Court;
3.Venue
is proper in this case.
4.
As follows are the factual circumstances, (The
overview will show the respondents employees did not consider complainant as an
old loyal subscriber, their complete disregard of internal approvals and
protocol, to extent kept repeating violating the Law and breaching consecutive
wireless internet broadband subscription Contracts - from terminating the
current mandatory Ultera monthly capped Plan 999 subscription instead of
correcting it to Unlimited Volume; and continually harassing the complainant
with dunning remarks to pay for downgraded services, these despite respondents'
refusal to comply to their own approved and signed FYA, and related Laws, DOJ's
Advisories, NTC Memorandum Circulars, etc.
All these are documented attached and Annex No. ____, if not, are found
on the email-complaints trails wherein PLDT-SMART top executives; management,
and exhausted channels were looped even up to recently complaint sent to the
Presidential Complaint Center of the Office of the President of the Republic of
the Philippines, his excellency President Rodrigo R. Duterte, with
corresponding receipt / transmittal to NTC CWPD OIC last July 22, 2019. And
later on to Atty. Lopez, last August 7, 2019, who still further prayed for this
Complaint Letter in chronological order, after the second hearing with the NTC
Legal Branch Last August 6, 2019. Emails were sent to NTC CWPD since December
11, 2018; to wit:
On
September 25, 2010, complainant chose Smart Communications, Inc., Smart
Broadband, Inc. in Smart Wireles Center in SM Bacoor, 3F SM Supermall,
Panapaan, Bacoor, Cavite (SMART SM Bacoor) for his first internet monthly
subscription, as there were few choices and the respondents advertised their
top of the line products and services, fast, reliable, stable. He applied for a
product he can use for mobility, specifically for a Promo/Blitz: "Smart Bro Plug-IT SIM ONLY UNLIMITED PLAN 999",
with an advance monthly service fee (MSF) of PHP 999.00, waived entrance fee,
with OR# BAMOR000115754; with SIM SMARTBRO, 3G, GOLD, POST, COM; Service Reference Number (SRN) or MIN 939XXXXX05
with official receipts (OR / OR#) BAMCHR000083073 with Modem Dongle at PHP 995.00 with OR# BAMCI000012288 (both OR Annex
No. ____) an Account No. 70XXXXX87.
On
October 4, 2010, the said modem
dongle was replaced by a new dongle but was found again to be defective in their back office with a Technical
Report or Service Report Number (SR#) 323267149 by Ms. Katherine XXXXX,
Consumer Sales Officer (CSO), SMART SM Bacoor. As complainant reiterated his
demand to be refunded to the full extent of his hard earned money, the modem
was refunded and credited directly to the replacement account, migrated to
SMARTBRO Unlimited Canopy Plan 999. There was PHP 395.67 credit left in old
account.
On
October 9, 2010, as a resolution, the above product was disconnected
officially on October 13, 2013 (indicated
on a later furnished certification letter dated November 6, 2013 by Ms. Rothel
Pamela XXXXX) and changed / migrated to "SMARTBRO Canopy Unlimited Plan 999" fixed wireless broadband
internet subscription with Account No. 07XXXXX52 and with SRN 101XXXXX60.
On
October 16, 2010 onwards subscribed to the said Unlimited Canopy with
24-month (locked-in period) contract and Service Order (SO) Type: New Install. Patience and
consistency, as choices were limited, were the arms held by the complainant for
the promises and resolution assured to him by the respondents, for reliable
internet service, working modem, and positive after-sales and cordial customer
service agents. The respondents' hotline was being difficult to a simple
request of rebate. Until the said SMARTBRO Canopy was found out to subjected to
Fair Usage Policy (FUP). The
official announcement to this was also being deferred and neither confirmed nor
denied, as such the hotline cannot provide a simple answer or explanation why
there were consistent strategically speed slow down, throttled, intermittent,
outages, no-signal, no-internet, being experienced by the subscriber /
complainant. He sent email complaints and follow-ups, one was to Ms. Angie
online to endorse to the branch his future visit with expectation of resolution
customercare@smart.com.ph.
On
June 13, 2013,
complainant finally visited again Smart SM Bacoor and filed a complaint to OIC,
Ms. Raquel XXXXX, with advice he will not pay anything and demanded no adverse
credit report or collection letter may be made based on that either (Annex No.
____ billing statement "SOA" date February 25, 2013 with her
complaint notes). He emailed her manager, Ms. Rovelyn XXXXX while
awaiting in the branch. He demanded that respondents furnish him his signed
SMART BRO Canopy SAF Contract to no avail.
On
August 13, 2013, at 10:17 AM he followed up via email, cc'ed Ms. Mylene XXXXX,
SMART Cavite Area Manager the above and even his rewards redemption for credit to
MSF applied on respondents' website Web Connect Telerewards were not being
processed. He complained as well why they don't do something to provide the
unlimited internet services and 2 Mbps speed with SMART BRO Canopy as an old
subscriber. He was disappointed as Ms. Angie's previous reply was "...to apply for a PLDT myDSL line
which have unlimited internet service 24/7at 3 Mbps...". (Come year
2017, this becomes respondents' template reply to subscribers' complaint on
slow internet connection 85% lower than the 2 Mbps or 3 Mbps speed despite
under Unlimited Volume Plan 999. Later that day, he visited the said branch and
talked with Branch Head, Ms. Obie. She printed the above email. She
proposed a resolution, after hearing the complainant's narration, a migration
to SMART Broadband, Inc. product, under
myBro Wireless Home Broadband Postpaid Plan, i.e. "WiMAX" for Php
999.00 and not the other product advertised that time which was capped or
consumable or new connect Plan 449 with MSF PHP449.00.
On
August 31, 2013, the above SMART BRO Canopy was disconnected while
awaiting installation of WiMAX Outdoor as resolution to continue the business
relationship, without bundled rebates neither gadgets for contract renewal or
new contract. Later their technician
picked-up the Canopy device and the antenna placed on the roof at the roof
mount and galvanized iron.
On
September 1, 2013, Complainant called in Hotline to inquire if there
were SR#s generated that month and reported that Canopy was disconnected
yesterday. Several SR#s were relayed to him including SR# 468207384 dated August
14, 2013 at 6:56 PM with a report by Support Group that their Contractor
scheduled a migration of his plan to WiMAX Outdoor, speed of 2 Mbps, and
Non-FUP. CSR Kristen and Team Leader (TL) Marlon XXXXX advised him to visit the
branch to fill out a form (SAF). Nobody cared to inform him if he didn't call. (The said TL was the same one who
condescendingly inform complainant last October 12, 2017 call-out that the CSR,
who was handling his email complaint follow ups and escalated complaint about
Ultera modem problem for six months, has forgotten to monitor it with SR#
919969838. But only by SOA date / cut-off November 10, 2017 Ultera did his
rebates start posting. Presently, it can be observed on the said Voucher Report
Ms. Reylinda XXXXX, as supervisor at her PLDT SSC Imus branch, printed and
signed last May 15, 2019, she or her counterparts partially rebated technical
reports, some aggregate amount of PHP 870.11 and later on debited again in the
Ultera account that by June 10, 2015,
vouchers started posting unknown retro-debits, e.g., a single amount of PHP
870.11).
On
September 2, 2013, the respondents were ready to disclose or formally
announce the FUP (imposed in 2010, see
Annex No. ____) after some gruesome years of run-arounds to the complaints
of slow or unreliable internet connection, so a resolution to the complaint
brought by this unconscionable policy versus the advertised "unlimited
internet". Complainant visited the branch again but Ms. Rovelyn XXXXX left
already, so he was assisted by Mr. Mike XXXXX, a CSO, to fill out a SAF with no lock-in period note by complainant with
reference to the email complaint paperless trail of Canopy, with pamphlets. However,
after complainant signed, he found out recently Mr. Mike XXXXX later on ticked
"Capped" and wrote "TBA" instead of Unlimited which
demonstrates the scheme in migration resolution; but the speed was still 2 Mbps
on SAF Contract. But related materials shall show their scheme and their
unwillingness to acknowledge and amend them.
Please refer to Unlimited Plug-It ORs too, which the latter
via email confirmed it was not subject to FUP. Even the Ultera Hotline from
*1888 to 171 CSRs, supervisors, technicians confirmed WiMAX to be unlimited
until January 2019 call ins. (Also to
note, the said product was said slated to be decommissioned, but by December 21,
2018 Canopy, WiMAX, and Ultera Unlimited Plan 999 and LTE Plan Home Bro Ultera
Throttling Anti-Churn daily capping were still existing per website and hotline
SR# 1101823819, branch SR# 1101906362, SR# 1101907769.)
On
October 10, 2013 myBro WiMAX was
installed with Account No. 72XXXXX46 and SRN 401XXXXX91. Further assistance
to unresolved complaints came from their Special Handling Team Managers: Ms.
Reliza XXXXX and Mr. Anthony XXXXX (which
team they now call Special Accounts Management or "SAM"). This is to
point out Annex No. ____ Inbound Sales SAF Contract.
On
November 15, 2013, Escalated complaint, with SOA still with the Letter
Head "SMART BRO" under myBro WiMAX was later on elevated by
complainant to the Smart Wireless Center Makati Main Branch, handled by the
Store Manager Ms. Mitch XXXXX. This was due to complaints that escalated
further when Ms. Remolin dishonored Mr. Marquez's assurance that WiMAX is not
subject to FUP. She even changed her mind, first she said WiMAX will no longer
be locked-in, as she was in the best position to decide provided complainant
waive his demand for a Letter of Apology. Ms. Reliza XXXXX made this during a
call out to complainant from her office landline and assured him she has all
access to his account and even without the conversation recorded, she's in the
position to approve and will honor her promise. As well, she promised a minutes
of the meeting will be emailed ASAP but it was taking longer than promised. She
called the complainant and scolded him after he brought these up via email to
the attention of the Customer Care Head [Mr. Ben]. She retaliated verbally saying she
will not follow through with her promises. So, she sent the complainant an
email of her proposal the next day and these work only if he voluntarily
terminates his subscription and she can process disconnection of subscription
already when clarified by him during the call (Annex No. ____ email dated
October 25, 2013). Thus, as mentioned above, a conference call happened in the
office of Ms. Mitch XXXXX when the complainant visited to elevate this horrible
experience. He relayed to her that Ms. Reliza XXXXX in addition to above cannot
downgrade the Plan 999 or claim it as a new connect due to a fact another plan
which she described exists, i.e., Plan 449 (capped) with MSF PHP449.00. Ms. Reliza
XXXXX confirmed over the phone and reverted to her old promises and complainant
was provided a form (please see Annex No. ____ Complaint Letter and Aftersales
Acknowledgment Receipt # "ASAR" M120823 as proof). Ms. Mitch XXXXX
gave him the ASAR# M120823 with disconnection approval by Ms. Reliza XXXXX, an
authorization notes referring to her at the Hotline, and her signature that he
can use anytime should he decided to terminate his subscription. This assurance later on was forgotten and disregarded, please refer to emails sent to
complainant by the customer service online team under Ms. Althea XXXXX from
March 2017 to February 2018.
(However, rebates adjusted worth PHP
1417.94 for cut-off November 25, 2013 were not credited to the migration to
WiMAX; whilst the promised SOA with zero balance was not provided earlier. This
could have affected his decision to continue the migration as it stated that
myBro Customer Service was slated to be transitioned to PLDT by January 1, 2014
as respondents might disregard the resolution and loyalty complainant earned as
an old subscriber. When he followed up some rebates at the SMART SM Bacoor,
last April 4, 2017 when his SIM card was replaced and upgraded to LTE with
generated SR# 843410541, he was not entertained and was told by Ms. Michelle XXXXX,
CMO, to relay the follow-ups to PLDT Service Center Branch; even his free two (2) SIM Cards were refused. He
saw Ms. Raquel XXXXX walking back and forth the back office. But she never
replied nor initiated assistance with his email complaint follow-ups to her and
her branch superiors via official email customercare@smart.com.ph. On November
21, 2017, Ms. Lea XXXXX, the new branch manager via phone call out, as she
claimed PLDT instructed her, advised him that Ms. Raquel XXXXX and Ms. Mylene
XXXXX transferred to another branch a year ago the reason they never replied.
So she gave her own email address together with her OIC Ms. G XXXXXX. But she
never introduced herself as the branch manager, never generated SRNs for every
interaction with complainant as against the memo SR# 929060325 by Ms. Althea
XXXXX. She always refer to Ms. Reliza XXXXX and the Legal Department; even the
Tenant Administration Office SM Supermall Bacoor, Cavite refused to assist
after their lawyer, Atty. Josefina XXXXXX sent email "ignore him or
repeat", please see Annex No. ____ email.)
On November 16, 2013 on wards,
complainant was more assured he can rebate internet connection problems. He
just needed to email complaints if internet is available and or call hotline
for SR#s and IVRS recorded purposes. The complainant was assured that reports
of ongoing internet technical problems shall be honored and commensurate
refund/rebate will be granted once the internet connection was verified up and
running as this is an Unlimited WiMAX. As horribly experienced, it takes
forever to report over-the-phone, whilst service report numbers were being
re-filed and unattended due to its closing without proper explanation (1)
as the complainant, looking back based on the explanations he compiled got from
PLDT and SMART hotline agents provided, found
out, (2) even the Customer Solution Platform (CSP) has no Data Privacy
Statement available versus can be crossed check with Smart CSP of SMART Prepaid
Buddy Hotline SR# 923 645 122 October
19, 2017 8:59 PM Diez "Decline Sharing of Data Privacy including October
2017; Data Privacy Update With Dashboard Alert on Data Privacy; Attributes
Universal Consent No - Decision
(Decline); Dashboard Alert! Menu Data Privacy Disagreed to provide consent
for promos and loyalty, profiling, third party usage, credit scoring and advertisement;
(3) worse were being mislabeled or
wrong options were ticked or used; (4) Billing
Complaints were not filled out properly, i.e., if CSR Agents or any
coordinators fail to encode complainants' mobile numbers, Billing Departments,
whether automated or manual shall not send complainants text messages or call
confirmation of the said, e.g., rebate / adjustment dispute, if not, result;
(5) Service Level Agreements (SLAs) weren't
chosen properly, most transactions were only noted on Account Memo, sometimes
not even saved or saved just to generate SR#s to prepare in anticipation for
customers asking for proof, becoming Close Report instantly; (6) instead of
preparing an Open Report. These oversights or intentional violations
resulted to agents lying by omission or running around or forced by such
limitations or circumstances, especially when their officers suddenly left
their office or urged them to lie. Thus, (7) whenever the complainant calls in
for follow up, these reports were closed
without even arriving to the proper
channels electronically, (8) neither manually escalated or elevated to higher management who can authorize or
approve further. These were also found out through probing, with the Wireless
agents, OICs, team leaders, supervisors, managers on duties, managers,
counterpart managers on Wired / DSL and Fiber campaigns, on the use of (9) Customer
Account Application (CSP); (10) Cosmo - Telephone Application; and (11) Share Point
- Management Instructions or Update Application both for internal and external, e.g., when CSRs are instructed to (12)
drop a call or (13) repeat an undated and anonymous spiel, or a scheduled
holiday party for the team or the call center; and (14) HUB - where everyone can
access emails sent by everyone, that (15) all manner of obnoxious customer
disservice, e.g., of , parroting, cursing, calling names, even interruptions to
further agitate the customer and complete their spiel while the customer was
talking, followed by agent dropping calls - (16) were all due to instructions
directed to them by their superiors and or management, executives including the
Special Handling Management. It was through this (17) HUB supervisors had read
to the complainant the 2nd For Your Approval (FYA) trail from first request
last November 2, 2017 with SR# 929060325 to approval on February 7, 2018, and
correspondences between management with telephone recorded conversation on the
email correspondence among them at SR# 995 946 135,
and the next service report numbers. This email consolidation was prepared by
Mr. Glenn XXXXX from November 2, 2017 to March 6, 2018 and later on was
transferred to DSL Campaign and said to have resigned from employment per
hotline, proving the (18) unconscionable
process and each bypassing by executives made to completely disregard
compliance to May 15, 2018 SR# 1149607132 to present. (19) (They either deleted the 1st FYA by Ms. Althea XXXXX
on the HUB or ensured nobody confirms its existence (indexed email dated
November 9, 2017). (20) CSP has a Red Box:
Dashboard Alert (IE) SR#
996 482 936 - eligible for wired migration (for facility checking) March 17, 2018 Alert Code; subs concern is
currently being handled by hotline operation manager March 1, 2018; ultera BTS
base station for decongestion refer to advisory for special handling March 3,
2017; they never amended and still has a note that his subscription is
Eligible for Wired Migration "for facility checking" dated March
2018, then the time stamp changed to June 2018). It also reads Base station
(BTS) for decongestion refer to advisory for Special Handling, dated March 17,
2017. This was the time both the Ultera device / modem was reported
malfunctioning / defective, but no Special Handling managers nor staff reached
out to the complainant until October 12, 2017 until the first FYA was awaiting
compliance only to be neglected. When he was contacted by the Customer
Experience Management, they dropped the call whenever he wished to speak to the
manager. On November 2, 2017 when the 2nd FYA was being facilitated starting
from the PLDT SSC Imus Branch, the correspondences did not show any sign that
they tried to check the CSP Dashboard Alert to have an idea that DSL has been
declined by complainant since August 2013 and November 2, 2017. But when the
FYA was approved and signed awaiting compliance, they had somebody from the
Titanium Team called out the complainant to confuse him for DSL migration
assistance instead of the correction to Ultera Unlimited Volume.
On
March 16, 2015, PLDT Online Team Ms. Jenny XXXXX confirmed based on her
records complainant's WiMAX was migrated to Ultera Plan 999 with Account
No. 070XXXXX52, SRN 0998XXXX888 dated March 14, 2015, upon his complaint
that advertisement on website www.pldthome.com/ultera/support upgrade from WiMAX to Ultera does
not mention installation fees PHP 1500.00 and device fee PHP 1200.00, and lock
in period whilst it remains Plan 999 or PHP 999.00 (ANNEX NO. ____ emails and
website printout, which by January 2019, details of parameters and Plan was
deleted by respondent after December 21, 2018 with SR# 1101888379 after Ms.
Reylinda XXXXX finally was persuaded to see the advertisement herself. She even
thanked complainant for informing her). Complainant was an OFW in KSA from
January 18, 2014 to last week of January, 2016. Instead of checking WiMAX
internet connection problem complaint, respondents migrated it to PLDT Home
Ultera Plan 999 daily capped, throttle, and anti-churn instead of the
advertized Upgrade Unlimited Volume speeds of 2 Mbps which parameter to be met
was only if subscriber is an existing WiMAX or Canopy subscriber.
He
found out later on that his WiMAX was transferred to PLDT and much later on was
slated to be forced decommissioned, after this was migrated to Ultera daily
capping Plan 999 last March 15, 2015. He was later told by Mr. Glenn XXXXX,
PLDT Home Bro Ultera Hotline 171 Manager, last January 5, 2018 that his
internet connection works by them providing a daily 1 GB volume at speeds up to
3 Mbps and will slow down 1/3 of that speed once the allocated volume are
consumed, but he's awaiting approval for a consistent 1 Mbps speed. On the Annex
No. ____ email trail, it will show an email report relayed by hotline
supervisor to complainant the events that transpired how PLDT SSC Imus Branch
handled my complaint last November 2, 2017 until my the same demands were
approved by Mr. Irwin XXXX sometime February 7, 2018. On the other hand, Annex
No. ____ email trails also show simultaneous handling of the counterpart SMART
Wireless Center SM Bacoor Branch/PLDT Wireless Communication SM Bacoor Branch.
On
November 9, 2017, Ms. Althea XXXXX, Senior Manager promised the Ultera
Unlimited with speeds of 2 Mbps after she approved last November 2, 2017 SR#
929060325 refund of six (6) monthly service fees (MSF) for their expansion
program, technical problems, and negligence on defective modem report. The
rebates were credited to the account, please refer to Annex No. ____ed emails
trails. Beforehand, she promised a verification of the wrong migration to
Ultera Plan 999 with a 300 MB daily capping and speeds up to 3 Mbps that they
claim to slow by 2/3s, yet the experience was anything but 1/3 of 3 Mbps.
Complainant remembers that when he chatted with his family after office hours,
the video and sound are blurred and choppy most of the time respectively.
On November 23, 2017, SOA
with cut-off November 10, 2017, was overpaid but a dunning big and slanted
water mark states "Notice of Disconnection", per Hotline, only an
email correspondence between Mr. Glenn XXXXX and Ms. Morena XXXXX can be read
on the HUB but no action taken: (December 7, 2017 9:48 AM Morena XXXXX Account Analysis
Customer Collection and Account Mgmt. "This is the SOA that subs received
I think he is complaining the water marks and dunning note we have pending
request with bill mgmt. team on the enhancement this concern.") Later on appeared as well to SOA with June 10, 2018 cut-off
despite over payments and report and follow up of the Letter of Apology for the
above oversight by Collections. What was to be disconnected, where is the
replacement correction of Ultera Unlimited Volume with speeds of 2Mbps approved
for configuration?
On December 23, 2017, with
consistent follow-ups by complainant, and promises being broken by respondents,
Ms. Maria Cecilia H. Abad, PLDT Deputy Data Privacy and Customer Service Head, dishonoured
and bypassed the said approval by Ms. Althea XXXXX, instead incorporated on the
third page of the SOA (see Annex No. ____) her mandatory announcement that then
current Ultera daily capping Plan 999 will be migrated to Ultera monthly
capping Plan 999 from 1 GB daily data to 30 GB monthly data, after it was
consumed, the speed shall be throttled, yet failing to provide the details of
internet how low the speeds or strength will be, and with a temerity
advertising a speed increase for a price, i.e., additional data boosters. It is
to be noted that this was done by batches and the complainant was mandatory
scheduled for the migration on January 12, 2018 Cavite or South Luzon batch.
Complainant was perplexed to find out that this was the month NTC was mandated
to make a survey on certain areas, i.e., Metro Manila, to measure the speed of
telecoms wherein the respondents passed with flying colors in terms of internet
speeds. If batches were existing and areas surveyed match, the internet speed
can be presumed faster on the first two weeks if the 30 GB data per month
applies, and will slow down up to 1/3 give or take without problems to the
survey, most especially to the respondents. She and her team even violated the
complainant's Data Privacy Rights (Please see email complaint dated February
14, 2018). On March
14, 2015 e.g., (Ultera) Force Migration
to Ultera SR# 613 943 495 "Code No C100166 Dinco 10:38 AM Part of Ultera Migration Call-out Batch 6; Force
Migration SR# 401 018 4491; Contact No 0918 XXXXX88 BOD; Call out March 9, 2015
with existing Plan WiMAX; Homebro Ultera Plan 999 (where is the
record of call out as against email by Online Team CSO Jenny XXXXX
confirmed based on her records complainant's WiMAX was migrated to Ultera Plan 999 dated March 14, 2015
where she discussed T&C after the fact without proof?)
The National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) has found
PLDT Inc. and Globe Telecom’s quality of service acceptable, only weighed down by spotty voice
calls for their 3G and 4G handsets.
In a rare statement discussing the quality of
service of PLDT’s Smart Communications and Globe, the regulator said both had mainly complied with acceptable standards.
This was based on its quality of service survey, the results of which were
released yesterday.
"... The benchmarking was conducted over five random days in January 2018
covering areas within Metro Manila. The NTC said tests involved 500 calls
each for Smart and Globe from inside a moving vehicle....
"... In terms of their mobile internet
browsing capabilities, Globe received a “success rate” of 98.33 percent while
Smart had 99.83 percent. Both received a 100 percent ping success rate.
Application throughout was at 10.64 megabits
per second for Globe and 11.97 Mbps for Smart, the NTC added.
In terms of page loading time, the NTC
measured various social media apps and search engines. For Facebook, Globe
recorded a page loading time of 4.9 seconds while Smart scored 4.38 seconds.
For Google, Globe was at 2.63 seconds while Smart was at 3.34 seconds.
A 2016 study by Google revealed over half of
site visits are abandoned if a page takes more than 3 seconds to load. At the
time, sites took an average of 19 seconds to load while on a 3G network."
- Except for voice calls, PLDT, Globe pass NTC quality test
By: Miguel R. Camus -
@inquirerdotnet Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:30 AM March 02, 2018
On
January 13, 2018, from November 10, 2018 up to the November 10, 2019 complainant’s
MSF rebates and payments are being used up in full despite respondents'
noncompliance to unlimited volume with speeds of 2Mbps from WiMAX, full refund
of all paid MSFs, etc. Last January 13, 2018, Ms. Althea XXXXX missed called
once, but was contacted by complainant last February 26, 2018, and twice on May
2019 (please see email to Mr. Paolo
Lopez, Vice President Customer Care) whom confirmed her promises, yet her
endorsements to Home Bro were again futile. Nobody called him. Instead, last
February 14, 2018, another team tried to bypass hers and Mr. Irwin XXXXX's
approval, Ms. Anna XXXXX claimed she's calling to migrate his internet Plan to
DSL, which he declined and advised he never requested. It is to be noted that
the CSP has a Dashboard Alert they never amended and still has a note that his
subscription is (Eligible for Wired Migration "for facility checking"
dated March 2018, then the time stamp changed to June 2018) She never brought
up the second approval by Mr. Irwin XXXXX for the Ultera Unlimited Volume with
speeds up to 2 Mbps that show they prefer the complainant to make an uninformed
decision by uncalled for and ambush calls. From March 2017 to March 2018, the
structured decision and handling process prove nothing but lying by omission by
the respondents. But as expected, complacency among their management will
sooner or later made it possible for their own to officially, recorded, how
they tried to confuse and bypass approvals and impress NTC is their Compliance
Department, now the courts of Makati City. Who will enjoy the other half of the
2 Mbps if only they can verbally assure that speeds of 1 Mbps will be
consistently provided, and multiplier effect dictates all subscriber's promised
of the said Plan 999, half of their speed will be provided to new subscribers.,
and so on and so forth.
On February 14, 2018,
The following can be read in one of the emails sent to respondents for
Violation of Data Privacy of complainant and noncompliance to FYAs (See Annex
N0. ___:
The said FYA stated at
least three (3) items:
1. Full Ultera and WiMAX Unlimited monthly service fee (MSF) refund from March
2015 to present
2. Correcting internet migration from Data Capped Ultera to Unlimited (Data)
Volume Ultera up to speeds of 2Mbps
3. Letter of Apology from PLDT (on an Official Letter Head, officially signed
by a PLDT executive, cc'ed Mr. Manuel V. Pangilinan, stamped with official
company seal, with initials who prepared the letter) explaining the appearing
of dunning water mark "Notice of Disconnection" on the SOA with
Cut-Off Nov 10, 2017 while the adjustments have not been completely posted,
despite the full payment and overpayment appearing on the other hand; and why
the activation of the promised internet migration correction has not yet been
facilitated nor activated! It must include the resolution and how the same
mistakes, oversights, neglect, inept and condescending service, dropping of
calls, misdirection of SPOC spiels, Data Privacy and Dashboard Alert
mismanagement, etc. must be prevented and avoided in good faith! These must be
sent, hard copy to my billing address, and an earlier soft copy via my
registered email address on my Account at PLDT CSP! Smart Communications must
do the same!
Data Privacy Breech and Fradulent
transaction:
Titanium DSL called, using 171 PLDT Hotline, to advise her assistance to
migrate my datacapped Ultera internet to wired (DSL) last Feb 14, 2018, despite
of the recent approvals! What was wrong in this scenario? Worse, she texted me
one day before, that was Feb 13, 2018
"Dear Sir Elman, This is Anna of PLDT
Customer Care. Please be informed that I will be calling you within 5 minutes
to assist you to migrate your current service with SRN# 998xxxx888 to an
unlimited service. Thank you. Please do not reply. This is system generated Feb
13 2018 7:02 PM 0918xxxxx88".
And when Ms. Anna XXXXXX finally called me last Feb 14, 2018, she talked about DSL migration when it was not even mentioned on the
system generated text itself! (When I asked for her supervisor, Ms. Nicel XXXXXX,
the latter dropped my call and never called me back to apologize despite of my
several complaints both at the Ultera and DSL Hotlines!)
The text was similar to the Special Handling Consumer Care Senior Manager
(subordinate of Ms. Abad, AVP Deputy Data Privacy Officer and PLDT Consumer
Care Head!) Ms. Althea XXXXX's email dated Nov 9, 2017 at 5:06 PM (please see
the complete trail below):
“…We would like to inform you that your current
subscription is still at Plan 999 thus we will not make any changes therein…."
“There is a possible chance that we can provide you with unlimited volume on the condition that the speed
will be at 2Mbps. However, this will
take time as we have to conduct necessary configuration with our back end.”
On May 30, 2018, complainant visited PLDT
Imus SSC branch and was provided complaint SR# 1022849336 May 30,
2018 5:30 PM OIC Julieta XXXXX FFup for FYA copy; requested for conference
call; req for dashboard alert update; req old alert should not override and
proper escalation; dashboard alert for (facility since Nov 2, 2017);
refused to migrate to DSL since Nov; SR# 1022491765: Re PLDT Plan/asking for
quotations for the hotline DSL talk if it was true!; SR# 1022483617 - Dash Data Privacy/DSL Migration/Dashboard; SR#
1022851579 5:38 PM PLDT SSC "Still waiting for the apology letter;
Requested for a certification of his Ultera Cert; Sent email to Ms. Jona for
the copy of FYA since Ms. Reylin received email for request copies; Last
email received from Ms Reylin dated Feb 22 2018; Opts Mgr kept on telling her
for the full refund due to wrong migration; rebates due to BTS Goodwill
not due to defective modem need to set an appointment with Ms Reylin for the
conference call together with the Smart Spox.
On
June 4, 2019, it was unfortunate that respondents' SAMs on the NTC
mediation separately and consecutively by Mr. Ricardo “Jonjon” Ebale and Atty.
Xandralyn Molina, they only shown a scratch bond paper, hand written, jotted
dates claiming 10 months of rebates as though I have not paid them and their
job was just to relay these were rebates and the last they shall compensate. I
showed them my billing statements with PLDT-SMART system generated payments and
official receipts and OR numbers, as proof of payments their system continually
eats despite noncompliance Ultera to Unlimited Volume, yet they refused to
comply. They promised Atty. Molina a report of the complainant's payments, but
according to Atty. Lopez, instead of these information, he was texted by a SAM
specialist that complainant stopped paying since April 2017. I had shown him
the last three billing statement with official generated payment details and
outstanding balances, on the presence of her honor, hearing officer, Atty.
Epifania Pajel-Cruz. He must have all the pertinent records and email trail but
unfortunately, disappointingly, he preferred a complaint letter according to
his preference and referring to the rules of court, and provided on the email
reply afterwards his insinuation to bring this Administrative Case to the
courts in Makati City for damages.
Now, with all due respect, as the
respondent prefers a summary, the complainant enjoin as well the honorable
hearing officer to refer also to his email complaint trails to substantiate
further his causes of action together with the time and date Atty. Lopez
preferred to be cited. This was a
consistent correspondence and activities in pursuit of a reliable internet
service involving more than 6 migrations and different products, escalating
horribly, e.g., the internal process recorded that can enlighten the Specialist
but did not bother to refer to:
on March 5, 2015 SR# 612 064 186 12:46 PM Ma Theresa Ano Online
Services "Received Email Dated March 4, 2015 11:47 AM from Curo: Ma
Kathrina XXXXX HomeBro Dispute Mgmt/Intermittent Connection A/C#
634010184491;Account Status Active; Account Type WiMAX Green pocket Brand
OX230; Look for: Mr. Elman Contact ...0918XXXXX88 Escalated endorsement; Please
provide feedback to client; Replied to ____elman@yahoo.com..."
On March 12, 2015 SR# 613 400 712 11:45 AM XXXXX CSR Glenn
XXXXX "No connection since yesterday March 11 no internet connection;
Troubleshooting check device (Protocol); Still no internet connection;
Deployment Technician; Follow up/Update March 13, 2015 5:44 PM Ruwarfin (Second
Level); Cancelled SO Connection... di na paaayos; We check subs has already
connection; System Volume RSSI: 35 ID SINR: 29 dB (10dB; 30dB) Mbps Sir
PJ..."
On March 14, 2015
(Ultera) Force Migration to Ultera SR# 613 943 495 "Code No C100166
Dinco 10:38 AM Part of Ultera Migration Call-out Batch 6; Force Migration SR#
401 018 4491; Contact No 0918 XXXXX88 BOD; Call out March 9, 2015 with existing
Plan WiMAX; Homebro Ultera Plan 999 (where is the record of call out as against email by Online Team
CSO Jenny
XXXXX confirmed based on her records complainant's WiMAX was migrated to Ultera Plan 999 dated March 14, 2015
where she discussed T&C after the fact without proof?)
On March 14, 2015 11:06 AM (Update) Jose David XXXXX "Sched
date March 15, 2015 Contractor 750 Semscotech Corp. For Ultera Migration; Shift
8:00 AM - 5:00 PM
On March 15, 2015 Service & Equipment Menu (Service Activation
Date) 1:43PM not (TDLTE999CH current)
On March 20, 2015 Close Report ("Nobody bothered to check rebates
complaint and adjustments to trnsfer to the new claimed force migration to
Ultera!")
On August 6, 2019,
it is to be noted that on the first summons by NTC Legal Branch OIC-Director
Atty Ella Blanca B. Lopez, future respondents' counsel, Atty. Juan Antonio R.
Lopez failed to provide, when required to file and serve his Answer to the
Complaint (copy of which was served even, evident with the prior replies, of Special Accounts
Management (SAM) comprised first by Ms. Mariz, Online SAM PLDT-Smart, that
"...FYA rebates were not granted..." on email dated January 2, 2019; and with of Ms. Michelle Santos, Manager, and Ms. Weleen Castro;
Specialist, who appeared during the NTC Mediation on June 4, 2019)
within fifteen (15) days after service, etc., on the 1st hearing last July 15,
2019, but he prayed for another Complaint Letter. Unfortunately, complainant
did not receive the said summons, thus not present. On the second hearing, her
honor went to Singapore, whilst NTC CWPD OIC Atty. Maria Xandralyn M. Molina
that time not around to observe, and the summons' instruction was amiss as
respondent was ordered to file a written complaint; whilst Atty. Lopez replied
verbally that his Specialist texted him that complainant didn't pay his monthly
service fees since April 2017, yet complainant has no obligations to them since
October 10, 2019 with last payments. Complainant reiterated that Atty.
Lopez was the one who suggested complainant email him. So, he
presented to Atty. Lopez his proofs of payments opposing his Special Accounts
Management/Specialist’s claims of non-payment few months after the locked in
period has expired.
Paid Statement
dates: 10 Mar 2017 Smart
OR# BEVOR007215557
10
Apr 2017 Smart OR#
BEVOR007369124
10
May 2017 Smart OR# BEVOR007488210
10
Sept 2017 Smart OR# BEVOR008016827
Paid Statement
dates: 10 Aug 2018 SM
OR# 000052526 / Smart OR# BEVOR009286365
10
Sep 2018 SM OR# 000061782 /
Smart OR# BEVOR009365336
10
Oct 2018 SM OR# 000071114 /
Smart OR# BEVOR009446416
Complainant demanded that PLDT - Smart to cease and
desist on sending him dunning collections SMS text messages, and recently
via email and text by Mr. Rommel T. Garcia of legal2@admerexsolutions.com/ rgarcia@admerexsolutions.com Tel 2499311 /
09438101561 and ADMEREX text sender under Smart Buddy Prepaid. And this year
2019 early quarters by Arquillo Law Office.
Complainant relayed his expectation as well that Atty. Lopez had relayed his demands to his Data Privacy Officer as summarized in his recent email on his email trail.
Complainant, as a reply, said sentiments backed up by facts must be investigated
by reacting to the service report numbers and recorded conversations
respondents' Hotlines IVRSs kept on repeating to be recorded for quality
assurance purposes.
5.
The above statement of facts supported by the Annex No. ____ emails complaint
trails, letter, and documentations, led complainant to seek compliance and
claim compensation against respondents for continuing violations and undue Denial of Approved Correction of
subscriptions plan / Compliance delays, despite the email-complaints of
bypassing Management Approval; Breach of Contract, Wrong Installation and
Migration, Data capping, Throttling, Intermittent Internet, False Unlimited
Internet Advertising; he sent and followed up consistently, only to be
dishonored and bypassed, set aside, and maliciously applied schemes to confuse
the complainant by respondents and later on, after almost a year, with mentions
of more than three years and how to appease him by Ms. Jona XXXXX, despite of
payment for Billing Statement Dated October 10, 2018, which left no outstanding
balances, whilst complainant demanded a stop to the vicious cycle of him paying
on time last November 9, 2018 to Ms. Reylinda XXXXX around 6:00 PM, who only
talked to him over-the-phone, i.e., landline telephone on the table of senior
CSR Ms. Milet XXXXX; yet his complaint, disputes, follow-ups for compliance
were sat upon by respondents' management, then his internet connection was soon
terminated on December 10, 2018 and no billing statements that state his total
outstanding balance were further provided to him to be signed. Outrageously,
respondents' Collection agencies kept on sending dunning collection electronic
messages up to this present week, August 2019. Thus and since then a complaint
to the Honourable Commission was filed and followed up via emails, cc'ed the
respondents, until and with visits by May 2019 at NTC up to present. Thus,
For violation of the following: Republic Act
No. 7394, series of 1992, known as the Consumer Act of the Philippines
(“Consumer Act”) Article 50 (a, b, d, e, f, i, j), 52 (a-e), 74, 102 (a-c),
103, 104, 105, 106, 108; 110, 164 (c); DOJ, Office for Competition, Advisory
Opinion No. 02 (Series of 2014) on "Unlimited" Internet Offers;
NTC Memorandum Circular 07-08-2015
80% ISP Broadband Service Reliability, NTC Memorandum Circular No. 05-06-2007;
RA 7925 or the Public Telecommunications Policy Act of 1995 or Public
Telecommunications Policy Act of the Philippines; 1987 Constitution Sec 9, Art
XVI; Civil Code Art 1170;
Republic Act No. 10173
(Data Privacy Act of 2012) CHAPTER 1 (d), Sec 14, 29, 32 (a), CHAPTER 7 (b); Etc. Please see Email Complaint Trails For: Denial /
Noncompliance of Approved and signed 2 FYAs for Correction of subscriptions
plan by management; etc.
JAO
- JOINT DTI-DICT-NTC-NPC-DOJ ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 18-01 SERIES OF 2018
Data Privacy and Protection; Defective Product; Denial and Noncompliance of
Approved and Signed FYA Subscription Plan Correction; Fair Use Policy;
Lock-in Period; Non-conformity to, or Violation on, the Terms and Conditions
on Misleading Advertisement, Fraudulent Sales Promo, Deceptive Sales Practice
and Other complaints akin to the foregoing; Poor Technical / Customer Service
Care and Accessibility; Text Scams / Spam Messages; Unauthorized Charges;
Value Added Service (Opt-in and – Out); Vanishing Load; and Warranty
a.
Denial and Noncompliance to Approved Subscription Plan Correction; Fair Use
Policy; Lock-in Period; Non-conformity to, or Violation on, the Terms and
Conditions on Misleading Advertisement, Fraudulent Sales Promo, Deceptive
Sales Practice and Other complaints akin to the foregoing - Respondents must comply to approved
Correction of internet subscription to Ultera Plan999 Unlimited Data/Volume
internet connection with consistent speeds of 2Mbps as advertised on with
parameters met by the complainant as an
old and loyal subscriber - complainant's existing internet subscription Plan
999 was WiMAX when it was decommissioned to Ultera Plan999 daily capped,
throttled, anti-churned last March 14, 2015; although as internal service
report number shows this decommissioning was planned by the respondents as
early as a
claimed call out on March 9, 2015, for Force
Migration of WiMAX SRN 401XXXXX91; without respective SR#s, then
troubleshooting was still to be done for WiMAX on March 12, 2015 SR# 613 400 712 11:45 AM xxxxx CSR
Glenn XXXXX "No connection since yesterday March 11 no internet
connection; Troubleshooting check device (Protocol); Still no internet
connection; Deployment Technician; Follow up/Update March 13, 2015 5:44 PM
Ruwarfin (Second Level); Cancelled SO Connection di na paaayos; We check subs
has already connection; System Volume RSSI: 35 ID SINR: 29 dB (10dB; 30dB) Mbps
Sir PJ..." then March 14, 2015
(Ultera) Force Migration to Ultera SR# 613 943 495 "Code No C100166
Dinco 10:38 AM Part of Ultera Migration Call-out Batch 6; Force Migration SR# 401 XXXXX91; Contact No 0918 XXXXX88 BOD; Call
out March 9, 2015 with existing Plan WiMAX; Homebro Ultera Plan 999 as against the claim of online team CSO Jenny
XXXXX claiming based on her records complainant's WiMAX was migrated to Ultera Plan 999 dated March 14, 2015
where she discussed T&C after the fact without proof?); and
honor what has been promised to complainant as an old loyal subscriber - no
lock in period; two months additional MSF refund upon termination; waived
intallation fees and modem fees/refund. The respondents gave me a reason to
believe that they systematically scheduled such actions whether to defraud or
to confuse the customer as complainant provide details going forward. How can you respondents not grant an approved FYA
discussed, deliberated, approved, signed, and cascaded to departments for
compliance? It started from complainant as a complaint, filed at the Hotline
and PLDT SSC Imus Branch until it reached the Marketing Department and
resolution gone back to the departments in the email loop, including the PLDT
SSC Imus Branch as FYI, but did not practice due diligence as little as to
inform the complainant? Please refer to the service report numbers from
November 2017 to present. I can help them by providing one, SR# 995 946 135
March 24, 2018 5:23 AM OIC Ann XXXXX, "This
is a Sup call...Modify account unlimited volume...Vent
frustrations...Backtracked all the emails to discuss previous concerns..."
Also Complainant indexed and quoted news reports
and/with applicable laws mentioned for his claims (Annex No. ____ed primarily DOJ, Office for Competition, Advisory
Opinion No. 02 (Series of 2014) on "Unlimited" Internet Offers;)
....In a 9-page
advisory dated December 9 but released to the media only on Friday, December
12, 2014, Justice Secretary Leila De Lima said telcos that practice this may be
held liable for violations of Republic Act (RA) No. 7394, also known as the
Consumer Act of the Philippines, particularly the provisions on fair packaging,
and misleading trade practice and advertisements....
"... The DOJ stressed that
"unlimited" should mean unlimited, in its truest sense, without
restrictions or a decline in the quality of service after a certain period of
time or after the stated subscription period has lapsed."
"...Apart from these penalties,
telcos may also be ordered to refund or compensate their subscribers by virtue
of Article 164 (c) of the Consumer Act which provides that "an act of
restitution may be imposed upon the non-compliant service
provider."..." Telcos warned vs misleading 'unli
internet' by Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News Posted at Dec 13, 2014 12:31 AM |
Updated as of Dec 13 2014 09:18 AM https://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/12/12/14/telcos-warned-vs-misleading-unli-internet-promos
Republic Act No. 7394, series of
1992, known as the Consumer Act of the Phihppines (“Consumer Act”), advances
the “protection against deceptive, unfair and unconscionable sales acts and
practices” as well as promotes the “provision of information and education to
facilitate sound choice and the proper exercise of rights by the consumer.”
Article 50 considers an act or practice 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.”
CHAPTER V
Liability for Product and Service
ARTICLE 102. Liability for Service Quality
Imperfection. — The service supplier is liable for any quality imperfections
that render the services improper for consumption or decrease their value, and
for those resulting from inconsistency with the information contained in the
offer or advertisement, the consumer being entitled to demand alternatively at
his option:
a)
the performance of the services, without any additional cost and when
applicable;
b)
the immediate reimbursement of the amount paid, with monetary updating
without prejudice to losses and damages, if any;
c)
a proportionate price reduction.
Reperformance of services may be entrusted to
duly qualified third parties, at the supplier’s risk and cost.
Improper services are those which prove to be
inadequate for purposes reasonably expected of them and those that fail to meet
the provisions of this Act regulating service rendering.
ARTICLE 103. Repair Service Obligation. — When
services are provided for the repair of any product, the supplier shall be considered
implicitly bound to use adequate, new, original replacement parts, or those
that maintain the manufacturer’s technical specifications unless, otherwise
authorized, as regards to the latter by the consumer.
ARTICLE 104. Ignorance of Quality Imperfection. — The
supplier’s ignorance of the quality imperfections due to inadequacy of the
products and services does not exempt him from any liability.
ARTICLE 105. Legal Guarantee of Adequacy. — The legal
guarantee of product or service adequacy does not require an express instrument
or contractual exoneration of the supplier being forbidden.
ARTICLE 106. Prohibition in Contractual Stipulation.
— The stipulation in a contract of a clause preventing, exonerating or reducing
the obligation to indemnify for damages effected, as provided for in this and
in the preceding Articles, is hereby prohibited, if there is more than one
person responsible for the cause of the damage, they shall be jointly liable
for the redress established in the pertinent provisions of this Act. However,
if the damage is caused by a component or part incorporated in the product or
service, its manufacturer, builder or importer and the person who incorporated
the component or part are jointly liable.
ARTICLE 107. Penalties. — Any person who shall
violate any provision of this Chapter or its implementing rules and regulations
with respect to any consumer product which is not food, cosmetic, or hazardous
substance shall upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not less than Five
thousand pesos (P5,000.00) and by imprisonment of not more than one (1) year or
both upon the discretion of the court.
In case of juridical persons, the penalty
shall be imposed upon its president, manager or head. If the offender is an
alien, he shall, after payment of fine and service of sentence, be deported
without further deportation proceedings.
CHAPTER VI
Advertising and Sales Promotion
ARTICLE 108. Declaration of Policy. — The State shall
protect the consumer from misleading advertisements and fraudulent sales
promotion practices.
ARTICLE 109. Implementing Agency. — The Department of
Trade and Industry shall enforce the provisions of this Chapter and its
implementing rules and regulations: Provided, That with respect to food, drugs,
cosmetics, devices and hazardous substances, it shall be enforced by the
Department of Health.
False, Deceptive and Misleading Advertisement
ARTICLE 110. False, Deceptive or Misleading
Advertisement. — It shall be unlawful for any person to disseminate or to cause
the dissemination of any false, deceptive or misleading advertisement by
Philippine mail or in commerce by print, radio, television, outdoor
advertisement or other medium for the purpose of inducing or which is likely to
induce directly or indirectly the purchase of consumer products or services.
An advertisement shall be false, deceptive or
misleading if it is not in conformity with the provisions of this Act or if it
is misleading in a material respect. In determining whether any advertisement
is false, deceptive or misleading, there shall be taken into account, among
other things, not only representations made or any combination thereof, but
also the extent to which the advertisement fails to reveal material facts in
the light of such representations, or materials with respect to consequences
which may result from the use or application of consumer products or services
to which the advertisement relates under the conditions prescribed in said
advertisement, or under such conditions as are customary or usual.
"NTC, Memorandum Circular No.
05-06-2007 that further explains the agency's consumer protection guidelines.
This policy was created in response to request for clearer guidelines on
consumer complaint handling that extends to services of telecommunication
entities, value-added service (VAS) providers, like Internet service connection, mobile phone and Internet-related
prepaid services, among others. Consumer rights as stated in the circular
include: Right to privacy. Subscriber
information shall not disclosed nor use in any other manner without
permission..." Telcos warned vs
misleading 'unli internet' by Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News Posted at Dec 13 2014
12:31 AM | Updated as of Dec 13 2014 09:18 AM https://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/12/12/14/telcos-warned-vs-misleading-unli-internet-promos
MANILA, Philippines – Internet
service providers (ISP) should deliver the same fast, consistent, and reliable
service that they peddle in their big-budget advertisements, the Department of
Justice (DOJ) said.
In a 9-page advisory signed by
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, the DOJ-Office for Competition (DOJ-OFC) said
it will not hesitate to sanction ISPs that will shortchange their subscribers.
Any misrepresentation in their advertisements violates the
provisions of Republic Act (RA) No. 7394 or the Consumer Act and the RA 7925 or
the Public Telecommunications Policy Act of 1995, DOJ-OFC warned.
The DOJ-OFC noted that most
telecommunication companies are enticing consumers by showcasing their various
offers, either bundled with gadgets or fixed with specific data usage.
Also, ISPs only specify the maximum
speed for downlink/uplink connections in their advertisements and other
promotional materials, DOJ-OFC noted. It pointed out that this allows ISPs to
provide slower connection speed than they advertise.
"Such practice thus creates
confusion among consumers. In reality, subscribers are short-changed because
they are not guaranteed fast, consistent and reliable Internet service but pay
for a quality of service that is below par," DOJ-OFC stated.
ISPs also fail to reveal the implementation of Fair Use Policy
(FUP) or data cap in their advertisements.
FUP is implemented to give end-users equal opportunities to
access their services, but heavy Internet users who have exceeded their data
limit are expected to experience slower connection.
Telecommunication firms in the
Philippines have been criticized for their failure to disclose their broadband
service terms to their consumers, prompting NTC to probe into complaints raised
by their subscribers.
In February, the National
Telecommunications Commission (NTC) summoned Globe Telecom to explain its data
service caps which, according to subscribers, is a far cry from its unlimited
data service promotions.
In August, Smart Communications was
summoned when it claimed it is offering 5G mobile services in the country.
Mobile sector watchers across the globe said the technology would not be
available in a decade or so.
"The consumers must be fully
informed about this term of use. It follows that non-specification of FUP is an
indication of a false, deceptive or misleading advertisement," the
advisory added.
ISPs should be more transparent to
their subscribers
The DOJ-OFC also cited NTC Memorandum Order No. 07-07-2011,
stating guidelines on minimum speed connections for Internet services.
ISPs are required to provide a minimum service reliability
of 80%, the memorandum noted.
The memorandum also directs ISPs to
indicate in their advertisements and other promotional materials, as well as in
their service agreements from the service rates of their Internet offers to the
minimum connection speed and the service reliability.
The DOJ-OFC said the NTC may file appropriate administrative
case against ISPs for failure to comply with the memorandum.
"The NTC should religiously
assess the monthly service reliability of the various ISPs in order to ensure
stable, fast, and undisrupted internet connection. There must be a mechanism that will enable the Commission to compile
and compare the monthly measures for systematic scanning," the DOJ-OFC
said.
The DOJ-OFC said the Department of
Trade and Industry (DTI) and the NTC are tasked to implement the Consumer Act
and the Public Telecommunications Policy Act, respectively. – Deliver as
advertised, DOJ warns Internet service providers
The Department of Justice says it will not hesitate to
sanction companies that are short-changing their Internet subscribers. Rappler.com Published 6:45 PM, September 24, 2014 Updated 6:45 PM, September
24, 2014
THE NATIONAL Telecommunications
Commission (NTC) has set the minimum
broadband speed in the country and required Internet service providers (ISP) to
disclose average data rates per
location.
“Broadband” must have data connection speed of at least 256
kilobits per second (kbps) -- the standard of the International
Telecommunications Union -- the agency said in Memorandum Circular No.
07-08-2015, signed on August 13.
“The subscribers/consumers/users shall be
properly informed of the broadband/Internet connection service being offered to
them through, among others, flyers, brochures, advertisements, etc.,” the NTC
said.
“The information shall always be updated.”
With
the circular, it is now “clear” that “ISPs cannot market as ‘broadband’ any
service that has a minimum speed less than 256 kbps, or face sanctions for
violating truth in advertising,”... -- Gov’t sets minimum broadband speed by
Daphne J. Magturo Business World Online Posted on August 17, 2015
b.
Fair Use Policy; Lock-in Period; Non-conformity to, or Violation on, the
Terms and Conditions on Misleading Advertisement, Fraudulent Sales Promo,
Deceptive Sales Practice and Other complaints akin to the foregoing; Poor
Technical / Customer Service Care and Accessibility; Text Scams / Spam Messages;
and Warranty - Complainant demands all
respondents furnish him all his signed contracts and certification with
detailed specification of his WiMAX and Ultera subscriptions; and brings up the
inequitable clauses, done in bad faith stated on the Subscriber Application
Form (SAF) Terms and Condition (SAF T&C) including but no limited to the
following:
SAF
T&C 1.5 Limitation of Liability "...shall not exceed the amount
P5,000.00...) versus 6.2 Termination by SBI and 6.1 Termination of Contract
stating "...If termination is made during the lock-in period as stated in
SAF, Subscriber shall pay a pre-termination fee in the amount of the full
Monthly Service Fee multiplied by the number of the months balance of the
lock-in period as stated in SAF or as may be specified at the sole discretion
of SBI. versus
Republic Act No. 7394, series of
1992, known as the Consumer Act of the Philippines (“Consumer Act”) ARTICLE 105. Legal Guarantee of Adequacy. — The legal
guarantee of product or service adequacy does not require an express instrument
or contractual exoneration of the supplier being forbidden.
Consumer Act ARTICLE 106. Prohibition in Contractual Stipulation. — The stipulation in a contract of a clause preventing, exonerating or reducing the obligation to indemnify for damages effected, as provided for in this and in the preceding Articles, is hereby prohibited, if there is more than one person responsible for the cause of the damage, they shall be jointly liable for the redress established in the pertinent provisions of this Act. However, if the damage is caused by a component or part incorporated in the product or service, its manufacturer, builder or importer and the person who incorporated the component or part are jointly liable.
SAF
T&C 8.0 Miscellaneous to 8.4 Separability Clause versus:
Consumer Act ARTICLE 106. Prohibition in Contractual Stipulation.
— The stipulation in a contract of a
clause preventing, exonerating or reducing the obligation to indemnify for
damages effected, as provided for in this and in the preceding Articles, is
hereby prohibited, if there is more than one person responsible for the
cause of the damage, they shall be jointly liable for the redress established
in the pertinent provisions of this Act. However, if the damage is caused by a
component or part incorporated in the product or service, its manufacturer,
builder or importer and the person who incorporated the component or part are
jointly liable.
same as above "...be ordered to refund or compensate
their subscribers by virtue of Article 164 (c) of the Consumer Act which
provides that "an act of restitution may be imposed upon the non-compliant
service provider."..."Telcos
warned vs misleading 'unli internet' by Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News Posted at
Dec 13 2014 12:31 AM | Updated as of Dec 13 2014 09:18 AM https://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/12/12/14/telcos-warned-vs-misleading-unli-internet-promos
c.
Data Privacy and Protection; Defective Product; Non-conformity to, or
Violation on, the Terms and Conditions on Misleading Advertisement, Fraudulent
Sales Promo, Deceptive Sales Practice and Other complaints akin to the
foregoing; Poor Technical / Customer Service Care and Accessibility; Text
Scams / Spam Messages; - Demand to be
furnished information 4W's and an H accessed the complainant's personal
information and data, as already requested to respondents' Data Privacy
Officers, including Ms. Ma. Cecilia H. Abad, Data Privacy Deputy and Customer
Service Head. As well complainant is demanding compensation for violation of his
data privacy by the respondents by their Data Privacy Officers. Complainant relayed his expectation as well that Atty.
Lopez had relayed his demands to respondents' Data Privacy Officer as
summarized in his recent email on his email trail. Complainant, as a reply, said
sentiments backed up by facts must be investigated by reacting to the service
report numbers and recorded conversations respondents' Hotlines IVRSs kept on
repeating to be recorded for quality assurance purposes.
Republic Act No. 10173
(Data Privacy act of 2012) No Consent and unauthorized,
CHAPTER 1 Section 29
Unauthorized Access or Intentional Breach. - ...penalty... shall be imposed on
persons who knowingly and unlawfully, or violating data confidentiality and
security data systems, breaks in any way into any system where personal and
sensitive personal information is stored.
CHAPTER 1 Section 32
Unauthorized Disclosure. - (a) "...discloses to a third party...without
the consent of the data subject...
CHAPTER 1 (d) Direct
Marketing
CHAPTER 1 Section 14 Subcontract
of Personal Information "...prevent its use for unauthorized
purposes..."
CHAPTER 7 (b)
"...accountable to the Compliance with this Act. Identity designated shall
be made known to any data subject upon request."
d.
Data Privacy and Protection; Defective Product; Denial and Noncompliance of
Approved and Signed FYA Subscription Plan Correction; Fair Use Policy;
Lock-in Period; Non-conformity to, or Violation on, the Terms and Conditions
on Misleading Advertisement, Fraudulent Sales Promo, Deceptive Sales Practice
and Other complaints akin to the foregoing; Poor Technical / Customer Service
Care and Accessibility; Text Scams / Spam Messages; Unauthorized Charges;
Value Added Service (Opt-in and – Out); Vanishing Load; and Warranty - Full refund of his internet/s paid monthly
subscriptions worth PHP 80,000.00, if not, proportionately to respondents'
management claim that there will be slowed down to 1/3 of the actual internet
speed promised, i.e., 3 Mbps, throttled, including the unannounced outage and
technical problems they do not automatically rebate;
"...Apart from these penalties,
telcos may also be ordered to refund or compensate their subscribers by virtue
of Article 164 (c) of the Consumer Act which provides that "an act of
restitution may be imposed upon the non-compliant service provider."...
"NTC, Memorandum Circular No. 05-06-2007 ... Right not be charge. A subscriber can
only be charged according to the rates, terms, and conditions he or she has
agreed to. A consumer can not be charge for the time being during which a
continuing or continuous service was interrupted through no fault of the
subscriber..." Telcos warned vs misleading 'unli internet' by Ina
Reformina, ABS-CBN News Posted at Dec 13 2014 12:31 AM | Updated as of Dec 13
2014 09:18 AM https://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/12/12/14/telcos-warned-vs-misleading-unli-internet-promos
e.
Data Privacy and Protection; Defective Product; Denial and Noncompliance of
Approved and Signed FYA Subscription Plan Correction; Fair Use Policy;
Lock-in Period; Non-conformity to, or Violation on, the Terms and Conditions
on Misleading Advertisement, Fraudulent Sales Promo, Deceptive Sales Practice
and Other complaints akin to the foregoing; Poor Technical / Customer Service
Care and Accessibility; Text Scams / Spam Messages; Unauthorized Charges;
Value Added Service (Opt-in and – Out); Vanishing Load; and Warranty - Demand that respondents' Collection
Department, Agents, Agencies to cease and desist in
harassing by sending complainant dunning collection SMS text messages, emails,
missed calls recollection agents which as well made without the intention of talking to him by having his
cellphone 0918-XXXXX88 ring just once then hang up, getting the complaints
justification of non-payment and to what extent or period must be covered,
neither the amount needed to be paid, and how they can coordinate and endorse
proper resolution to the complaint;
Complainant reiterated that Atty.
Lopez was the one who suggested complainant email him last August 6, 2019 at
NTC. So, he presented to Atty. Lopez his proofs of payments opposing
his Special Accounts Management/Specialist’s claims of non-payment few months
after the locked in period has expired.
Paid Statement
dates: 10 Aug
2018 SM OR# 000052526 / Smart
OR# BEVOR009286365
10
Sep 2018 SM OR# 000061782 /
Smart OR# BEVOR009365336
10
Oct 2018 SM OR# 000071114 / Smart
OR# BEVOR009446416
Complainant demanded that PLDT - Smart to cease and
desist on sending him dunning collections SMS text messages, and recently
via email and text by Mr. Rommel T. Garcia of legal2@admerexsolutions.com/ rgarcia@admerexsolutions.com Tel 2499311 /
09438101561 and ADMEREX text sender under Smart Buddy Prepaid. And this year
2019 early quarters by Arquillo Law Office.
Complainant relayed his expectation as well that Atty. Lopez had
relayed his demands to respondents' Data Privacy Officer as summarized in his
recent email on his email trail. Complainant as a reply, said sentiments backed
up by facts must be investigated by reacting to the service report numbers and
recorded conversations respondents' Hotlines IVRSs kept on repeating to be
recorded for quality assurance purposes.
same as above "...be ordered to refund or compensate
their subscribers by virtue of Article 164 (c) of the Consumer Act which
provides that "an act of restitution may be imposed upon the non-compliant
service provider."..."
"NTC, Memorandum Circular No.
05-06-2007 ... Accurate and timely
billing. Post-paid subscribers should receive clear, accurate, complete,
and timely billing. Burden of proof. In
relation to complaints pertaining to post-paid billing errors and loss of
prepaid credits, telecommunication and VAS entities has the obligation to prove
that the complainant made the transaction within 30 days upon receipt of
complaint. During this period, pending
the investigation, the consumer shall not be required to pay the disputed
charge and any other related charges (penalty, late fees, etc.), and no adverse
credit report may be made based on that either. Consumers are expected to
file a complaint first with their service providers and keep records of
correspondence and phone calls made. If the complaint is not addressed within
30 days, the consumer has the right to escalate this to the National Telecommunications
Commission by filling up a complaint form. As this is still a new policy, it
will take time before it gets updated and will be highly dependent on actual
experience by consumers in going through the process. I look forward to your
insight.Telcos warned vs misleading 'unli
internet' by Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News Posted at Dec 13 2014 12:31 AM |
Updated as of Dec 13 2014 09:18 AM
f.
Data Privacy and Protection; Defective Product; Denial and Noncompliance of
Approved and Signed FYA Subscription Plan Correction; Fair Use Policy;
Lock-in Period; Non-conformity to, or Violation on, the Terms and Conditions
on Misleading Advertisement, Fraudulent Sales Promo, Deceptive Sales Practice
and Other complaints akin to the foregoing; Poor Technical / Customer Service
Care and Accessibility; Text Scams / Spam Messages; Unauthorized Charges;
Value Added Service (Opt-in and – Out); Vanishing Load; and Warranty - Demand
an official Print out of all his payments and Ultera Billing Statements,
especially the transition SOAs on WiMAX and Ultera, and the later first year
and 2019 SOAs that the respondents kept denying him when he went to PLDT SSC
Imus Branch and PLDT SSC East Avenue Branch, including Laguna Branch when he
was contacted by Mr. Val XXXXX who instructed him to proceed to NTC as his Legal
Department decision was to settle the dispute to this honorable Commission;
same as above be ordered to refund or compensate
their subscribers by virtue of Article 164 (c) of the Consumer Act which
provides that "an act of restitution may be imposed upon the non-compliant
service provider."..."
"NTC, Memorandum Circular No.
05-06-2007 ... Right to opt-out. Subscribers
are entitled to opt out from a post-paid service within 30-days from start or
commencement of the subscription. Add-on bundles are not considered as part of
the service and may therefore had to be paid for separately and its amount
should be clearly stated in the terms and conditions if required to be paid
for. Remaining balance verification. Prepaid
subscribers should be given a free mechanism to verify balance credits. Accurate and timely billing. Post-paid
subscribers should receive clear, accurate, complete, and timely billing. Burden of proof. In relation to complaints pertaining to post-paid billing
errors and loss of prepaid credits, telecommunication
and VAS entities has the obligation
to prove that the complainant made the transaction within 30 days upon receipt
of complaint. During this period, pending the investigation, the consumer
shall not be required to pay the disputed charge and any other related charges
(penalty, late fees, etc.), and no adverse credit report may be made based on
that either. Consumers are expected to file a complaint first with their
service providers and keep records of correspondence and phone calls made. If the
complaint is not addressed within 30 days, the consumer has the right to
escalate this to the National Telecommunications Commission by filling up a
complaint form. As this is still a new policy, it will take time before it gets
updated and will be highly dependent on actual experience by consumers in going
through the process. I look forward to your insight.Telcos warned vs misleading 'unli internet' by Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN
News Posted at Dec 13 2014 12:31 AM | Updated as of Dec 13 2014 09:18 AM
g.
Data Privacy and Protection; Defective Product; Denial and Noncompliance of
Approved and Signed FYA Subscription Plan Correction; Fair Use Policy;
Lock-in Period; Non-conformity to, or Violation on, the Terms and Conditions
on Misleading Advertisement, Fraudulent Sales Promo, Deceptive Sales Practice
and Other complaints akin to the foregoing; Poor Technical / Customer Service
Care and Accessibility; Text Scams / Spam Messages; Unauthorized Charges;
Value Added Service (Opt-in and – Out); Vanishing Load; and Warranty - Certification of zero outstanding balance
and non-deliquent account/subscription for all subscribed products;
same as above "...be ordered to refund or compensate
their subscribers by virtue of Article 164 (c) of the Consumer Act which
provides that "an act of restitution may be imposed upon the non-compliant
service provider."...Telcos warned vs misleading 'unli
internet' by Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News Posted at Dec 13 2014 12:31 AM |
Updated as of Dec 13 2014 09:18 AM https://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/12/12/14/telcos-warned-vs-misleading-unli-internet-promos
h.
Data Privacy and Protection; Defective Product; Denial and Noncompliance of
Approved and Signed FYA Subscription Plan Correction; Fair Use Policy;
Lock-in Period; Non-conformity to, or Violation on, the Terms and Conditions
on Misleading Advertisement, Fraudulent Sales Promo, Deceptive Sales Practice
and Other complaints akin to the foregoing; Poor Technical / Customer Service
Care and Accessibility; Text Scams / Spam Messages; Unauthorized Charges;
Value Added Service (Opt-in and – Out); Vanishing Load; and Warranty - Complainant Demands Formal Letters of
Apology with thorough explanation, resolution, and acknowledgment for wanton,
intentional neglect of his rights, subjecting him to horrible, condescending,
inept and dis-coordinated and uncooperative channels and after-sale customer
service and procedures to the extent of mishandling, misinformation and
disinformation by PLDT-SMART Special Accounts Management "SAM"
Specialist and Manager from the NTC CWPD Mediation to Full Blown Mediation by
the NTC CWPD OIC, and now by the NTC Legal; and for taking for granted
complaints of complainant as a loyal customer of PLDT;
same as above "...be ordered to refund or compensate
their subscribers by virtue of Article 164 (c) of the Consumer Act which
provides that "an act of restitution may be imposed upon the non-compliant
service provider."..."Telcos
warned vs misleading 'unli internet' by Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News Posted at
Dec 13 2014 12:31 AM | Updated as of Dec 13 2014 09:18 AM https://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/12/12/14/telcos-warned-vs-misleading-unli-internet-promos
i.
Data Privacy and Protection; Defective Product; Denial and Noncompliance of
Approved and Signed FYA Subscription Plan Correction; Fair Use Policy;
Lock-in Period; Non-conformity to, or Violation on, the Terms and Conditions
on Misleading Advertisement, Fraudulent Sales Promo, Deceptive Sales Practice
and Other complaints akin to the foregoing; Poor Technical / Customer Service
Care and Accessibility; Text Scams / Spam Messages; Unauthorized Charges;
Value Added Service (Opt-in and – Out); Vanishing Load; and Warranty - Respondents are liable for moral, actual,
and exemplary damages:
Article 1170 of the Civil Code
states that all those who are guilty of delay, negligence or in any manner
contravene the tenor of the obligation shall be liable for damages. Verily,
upon approval of the complaints demands, then non-compliance and unilaterally
terminating his subscription by the respondents, they contravened their
contractual obligations under the Plan and could therefore be held liable for
damages.
[Republic Act No. 7394, series of 1992, known as the
Consumer Act of the Philippines (“Consumer Act”), advances the “protection
against deceptive, unfair and unconscionable sales acts and practices” as well
as promotes the “provision of information and education to facilitate sound
choice and the proper exercise of rights by the consumer.” Article 50 considers
an act or practice 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.”
CHAPTER V
Liability for Product
and Service
...ARTICLE 106. Prohibition in Contractual Stipulation. —
The stipulation in a contract of a clause preventing, exonerating or reducing
the obligation to indemnify for damages effected, as provided for in this and
in the preceding Articles, is hereby prohibited, if there is more than one
person responsible for the cause of the damage, they shall be jointly liable
for the redress established in the pertinent provisions of this Act. However,
if the damage is caused by a component or part incorporated in the product or
service, its manufacturer, builder or importer and the person who incorporated
the component or part are jointly liable.
"....In a 9-page
advisory dated December 9 but released to the media only on Friday, December
12, 2014, Justice Secretary Leila De Lima said telcos that practice this may be
held liable for violations of Republic Act (RA) No. 7394, also known as the
Consumer Act of the Philippines, particularly the provisions on fair packaging,
and misleading trade practice and advertisements....
"... The DOJ stressed that
"unlimited" should mean unlimited, in its truest sense, without
restrictions or a decline in the quality of service after a certain period of
time or after the stated subscription period has lapsed."
"...Apart from these penalties,
telcos may also be ordered to refund or compensate their subscribers by virtue
of Article 164 (c) of the Consumer Act which provides that "an act of
restitution may be imposed upon the non-compliant service
provider."..." Telcos warned vs misleading 'unli
internet' by Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News Posted at Dec 13, 2014 12:31 AM |
Updated as of Dec 13 2014 09:18 AM https://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/12/12/14/telcos-warned-vs-misleading-unli-internet-promos
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most
respectfully prayed of this Honorable Commission that judgment be rendered
ordering respondents comply with the above approved correction and resolutions
and corresponding violations by the respondents.
Other
reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Quezon
City, 28 August, 2019
Sgd. Mr. Elman_________ Complainant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me
this 28 day of August, 2019 ….
Witness my hand and seal,
Doc. No. ___
Page No. ___
Book No. ____
Series of ___
VERIFICATION
AFFIDAVIT
I, (Insert Name of Affiant) , Filipino citizen, of legal age,
single/married to (Insert Name of Spouse if any), and a resident of (Insert
Address of Affiant), after having been duly sworn in accordance with law,
hereby depose and say:
1.
That................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
2.
........................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
3.
........................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Further Affiant sayeth none.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this ......... day of
..................... , 20__ in .....................................
Philippines.
Sgd. Mr. Elman _____________________
(Signature of Affiant
over Printed Name)
SUBSCRIBED
AND SWORN before me this 28 day of August 2018, by
............................................. who exhibited to me his CTC No.
................................... issued on .................................
at ...........................................
Notary
Public
Doc. No. .........:
Page No. .........;
Book No. .........;
Series of 20__.
Related:
CWPD Mediation Hearing: An Open Follow Up Complaint Letter to NTC, DTI, NPC, PLDT-SMART Ultera DSL Fiber Data Privacy Breach June 4, 2019 Awaiting Summon for Administrative Case
CWPD Mediation Hearing Schedule June 4, 2019: An Open Follow Up Complaint Letter to NTC, DTI, NPC, PLDT-SMART Ultera DSL Fiber Data Privacy BreachAn Open Follow Up Complaint Letter to NTC, PLDT-SMART Ultera DSL May 17, 2019
An Open Follow Up Complaint Letter to NTC, PLDT-SMART Ultera DSL May 14, 2019
Consumer Welfare and Protection Division National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) Replies Subscriber Complaint against PLDT-SMART Ultera DSL Fiber
An Open Follow Up Complaint Letter to NTC, PLDT SMART Ultera DSL May 14. 2019
An Open Follow Up Complaint Letter to PLDT SMART Ultera DSL Data Privacy Breech and Possible Fraudulent Calls
An Open Follow Up Complaint Letter to PLDT Ultera DSL (formerly SMARTBro WiMax & HomeBro Canopy)
Complaint: PLDT Home Ultera (LTE) Plan 999 Daily Volume Allocation Imposing Monthly Volume Allocation originally SMART Bro / MyBro Canopy Unlimited Migrated to WiMAX Unlimited
Complaint: SmartBro to myBro intermittent connection and throttled speed "Fair Use Policy" etc.
