In sum, the Court holds that Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s.

1997 are valid

issuances and binding to all concerned parties, including the
respondents in this case.

As a final note, while the proliferation of generic drugs and medicines

is indeed a welcome development as it effectively ensures access to
affordable quality drugs and medicines for all through their lower
prices, the State, through the FDA, which is the government
instrumentality tasked on this matter, must nevertheless be vigilant in
ensuring that the generic drugs and medicines released to the market
are safe and effective for use. (Republic of the Philippines,
represented by the Bureau of Food and Drugs (now Food and Drug
Administration) v. Drugmaker’s Laboratories, Inc. and Terramedic,
Inc., G.R. No. 190837, March 5, 2014)

Rule 1. Declaration of Policy. It is the policy of the State to

protect public health and, when the public interest or circumstances
of extreme urgency so require, it shall adopt appropriate measures to
promote and ensure access to affordable quality drugs and medicines
for all. Pursuant to the attainment of this general policy, an effective
competition policy in the supply and demand of quality affordable
drugs and medicines is recognized by the State as a primary
instrument. In the event that full competition is not effective, the State
recognizes as a reserve instrument the regulation of prices of drugs
and medicines as one of the means to also promote and ensure
access to quality affordable medicines.

Rule 2. Effective Competition. Effective Competition shall

encourage a milieu where there are a significant number of players at
each level of the pharmaceutical supply chain that shall ensure
availability and affordability of these health products. It exists in an
environment where the consumers are well informed and are able to
exercise their right to choose from a variety of variable options to
access affordable, quality drugs and medicines.

However, relying on our pronouncement in Land Bank of the

Philippines v. Pamintuan Development Co.,[18] the CA brushed aside
the procedural lapse and took a liberal stance on considerations of
substantial justice, viz.:

It is a far better and more prudent course of action

for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the
parties a review of the case on appeal to attain the ends
of justice rather than dispose of the case on technicality
and cause a grave injustice to the parties, giving a false
impression of speedy disposal of cases while actually
 resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of justice.
Thus, substantial justice would be better served by giving
due course to petitioners notice of appeal.[19]

Under Rule 1, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, liberal

construction of the rules is the controlling principle to effect
substantial justice.
x x x. Hence, rules of procedure must be faithfully followed except
only when for persuasive reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve a
litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply
with the prescribed procedure. x x x.
---------------------------

"A rigid adherence to the technical rules of procedure

disregards the fundamental aim of procedure to serve as an
aid to justice, not as a means for its frustration, and the
objective of the Rules of Court to afford litigants just, speedy
and inexpensive determination of their controversy. Thus,
excusable imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure
or lapses in the literal or rigid observance of a procedural rule
or non- jurisdictional deadline provided therein should be
overlooked and brushed aside as trivial and indecisive in the
interest of fair play and justice when public policy is not
involved, no prejudice has been caused the adverse party and
the court has not been deprived of its authority or jurisdiction."
(Maqui v. Court of Appeals, 69 SCRA 368, 374)

FDA Act of 2009

Section 15. Two new sections shall be added, which shall be the
new Sections 31 and 32 of Republic Act No. 3720, as amended,
which shall read as follows:
"SEC. 31. The orders, rulings or decisions of the FDA shall
become final and executory fifteen (15) days after the receipt of
a copy thereof by the party adversely affected unless within that
period, an administrative appeal has been perfected. One motion
for reconsideration may be filled, which shall suspend the
running of the said period."
"SEC. 32. The orders, rulings or decisions of the FDA shall be
appealable to the Secretary of Health. An appeal shall be
deemed perfected upon filing of the notice of appeal and posting
of the corresponding appeal bond. "An appeal shall not stay the
decision appealed from unless an order from the Secretary of
Health is issued to stay the execution thereof."