(A Philippine legal guide to rights, remedies, evidence, and procedures for consumers and merchants)

1) Overview: what “non-delivery” means in Philippine consumer disputes

“Non-delivery” in online purchases generally refers to any situation where a buyer has paid (fully or partially) but the goods or services are not delivered as agreed—whether because (a) no shipment was made, (b) shipment was made but not received, (c) delivery was repeatedly failed beyond a reasonable time, or (d) the seller/marketplace/courier refuses to deliver absent new conditions not agreed upon.

In Philippine practice, non-delivery disputes often involve:

Direct sellers on social media or messaging apps
Marketplace platforms (intermediaries enabling transactions)
Couriers/logistics providers
Digital payment channels (e-wallets, banks, cards, remittance)

The legal analysis typically turns on: contract, consumer protection, e-commerce rules, fraud/estafa, and evidence.

2) Governing laws and legal anchors (Philippine context)

A. Civil law: obligations and contracts

An online sale is still a contract of sale. Once payment is made and the seller accepts, the seller has the obligation to deliver the determinate thing or the agreed goods and to do so within the time and manner promised. Failure to deliver gives rise to breach, allowing remedies such as:

Demand for delivery (specific performance), or
Rescission/cancellation of the sale with refund, plus
Damages in proper cases

If there was no valid reason for delay, or if the delay defeats the purpose of the purchase, the buyer can generally treat it as a breach.

B. Consumer protection: Consumer Act of the Philippines (RA 7394)

RA 7394 provides the state policy of protecting consumers and can support claims involving:

Unfair/deceptive acts
Consumer product and service standards
Redress mechanisms through consumer agencies (commonly via DTI for most consumer products)

While RA 7394 predates modern marketplaces, it remains a backbone for consumer rights and complaints about non-delivery, refunds, and misrepresentation.

C. E-commerce recognition: E-Commerce Act (RA 8792)

RA 8792 validates electronic data messages, electronic documents, and electronic signatures—important because online disputes depend heavily on screenshots, chat logs, emails, order confirmations, and digital receipts.

D. Cybercrime overlay: Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175)

Where the non-delivery is tied to fraudulent schemes using ICT (e.g., fake stores, phishing, social engineering, and online swindling), RA 10175 may be invoked to address cyber-enabled fraud, often in coordination with criminal complaints.

E. Revised Penal Code: Estafa (swindling)

Non-delivery can be purely a civil breach, but it can also amount to estafa if the elements are present—most relevantly:

Deceit or fraudulent acts were employed, and
The buyer relied on them, paid money/property, and
Suffered damage, and
The seller had intent to defraud at the outset or engaged in fraudulent appropriation/denial in a manner covered by estafa provisions

The key dividing line: bad faith and deceit (criminal) vs mere failure to perform (civil).

3) Who may be liable in a non-delivery situation

A. Seller/merchant (primary obligor)

The seller is usually the party with the core duty to deliver. Liability may include:

Refund obligation
Damages (if proven)
Administrative exposure (DTI/consumer enforcement)
Criminal exposure (estafa/cybercrime) if fraud is present

B. Marketplace/platform (intermediary)

Platforms often position themselves as intermediaries with policies limiting liability, but in practice:

They control payment release (escrow), dispute resolution, and seller onboarding
Their terms can define when they must process refunds
If they actively shape the transaction, regulators may treat them as having consumer-facing obligations in certain contexts

C. Courier/logistics

Couriers may be liable if the seller shipped properly and non-delivery is due to:

Loss, theft, misdelivery, or negligence
Failure to follow delivery protocols
Falsified delivery status (e.g., tagged “delivered” without proof)

However, a buyer’s direct contractual relationship is often with the seller/platform rather than the courier, depending on how the shipping arrangement is structured.

D. Payment channel (bank/e-wallet/card)

Payment providers are not typically liable for delivery, but they are pivotal for:

Chargebacks/disputes (cards)
Reversal mechanisms (limited; depends on provider rules)
Freezing funds in fraud cases
KYC information that may help law enforcement

4) Classifying the case: breach, consumer complaint, or criminal fraud

A. Pure non-delivery (breach of contract)

Indicators:

Seller communicates, acknowledges delay
Seller offers delivery updates or refund options
No clear deceit at the start Remedy focus: refund/cancellation, delivery, damages where justified, and administrative complaint.

B. Suspicious non-delivery (potential fraud)

Indicators:

Seller disappears after payment
Fake tracking numbers or repeated excuses
“Pay again for release/shipping” demands
Multiple victims or patterned behavior Remedy focus: administrative complaint plus possible criminal complaint (estafa/cybercrime), preservation of evidence, and reporting.

C. Courier-related non-delivery

Indicators:

Seller provides proof of handover to courier
Tracking shows inconsistent scans
“Delivered” status without recipient signature/photo Remedy focus: claim against seller/platform; parallel escalation against courier.

5) Evidence: what to gather and why it matters

Because online disputes are evidence-heavy, preserve proof immediately:

A. Transaction proof

Order confirmation page / invoice
Screenshot of listing, price, seller name, product description
Payment confirmation: e-wallet reference, bank transfer slip, card receipt, remittance stub
Proof of payment date/time and amount

B. Communications

Chat logs (Messenger/Viber/WhatsApp/in-app chat)
Emails/SMS and seller responses
Any promises about shipping dates, tracking numbers, and refund commitments

C. Delivery proof (or lack thereof)

Tracking screenshots
Courier updates, delivery attempts
Proof you were available (if relevant), CCTV of gate/door (where available), building logbook
If “delivered” but not received: request the courier’s proof-of-delivery (POD), signature, geo-tag/photo

D. Seller identity indicators

Store link, username/handle, profile, posts
Contact number, bank/e-wallet account name and number
Return address used in shipping label (if any)

E. Authenticity and admissibility notes

Under Philippine e-commerce rules, electronic evidence is generally usable, but credibility improves when:

Screenshots show timestamps and account identifiers
Files are backed up and not altered
You can produce the original device/accounts if needed
You keep complete threads, not selective snippets

6) Pre-complaint steps: demand, internal dispute, and timelines

A. Review the seller/platform policies

Marketplaces usually have strict dispute windows (e.g., “file within X days from delivery date/order completion”). Missing the window can weaken refund options.

B. Send a formal demand (strongly recommended)

Even if you plan a complaint, send a clear written demand:

Identify order, date, amount, item
State breach: non-delivery as of a specific date
Demand: (a) deliver by a final deadline or (b) refund within a deadline
Warn of escalation to DTI, platform, and possible criminal complaint

A demand helps prove:

You gave opportunity to cure
The seller was informed
Bad faith if the seller ignores/refuses

C. Initiate platform dispute resolution (if applicable)

Use in-app dispute mechanisms first when:

Platform holds funds (escrow)
Platform can reverse/reimburse quickly
Platform can sanction sellers and provide documentation

D. Communicate with courier (for POD)

Where tracking shows “delivered,” immediately request:

POD details, signature/photo, drop location
Delivery rider name/ID (if policy allows)
Incident report and investigation reference number

7) Administrative complaints: DTI and other regulators

A. DTI (Department of Trade and Industry)

For most consumer goods and services, DTI is the primary agency for complaints. Typical outcomes:

Mediation/conciliation
Order for refund or replacement under appropriate circumstances
Administrative sanctions against non-compliant sellers (depending on jurisdiction and proof)

B. When other agencies may apply

Food and Drug Administration (regulated products like medicines/health products)
National Telecommunications Commission (certain telecom-related services)
BSP / financial institutions for payment-provider conduct (not delivery)
NPC (National Privacy Commission) if personal data misuse occurs during the scam These do not replace DTI for general non-delivery, but can be relevant in special categories.

C. What you typically file

Complaint-affidavit or complaint form
Attachments: evidence pack (screenshots, receipts, chats, tracking)
Proof of attempts to resolve (demand letter, platform ticket numbers)

8) Civil remedies: refund, damages, and small claims

A. Refund/rescission

If the seller fails to deliver, the buyer may seek:

Return of the price paid (refund)
Interest (in appropriate cases)
Compensation for proven losses

B. Damages

Possible damages in Philippine civil law include:

Actual/compensatory (direct proven losses)
Moral (requires showing of mental anguish tied to wrongful act, not automatic)
Exemplary (requires showing of wanton, fraudulent, reckless behavior) Courts are conservative: damages require proof and legal basis.

C. Small Claims Court (practical route for many)

If the primary goal is refund and the amount is within small claims limits, small claims can be a streamlined option:

No lawyers generally required for parties
Faster timelines than regular civil cases
Useful when you have clear documentary proof and identified defendant

A major practical hurdle: identifying and serving the correct defendant with a usable address.

9) Criminal remedies: when and how non-delivery becomes estafa/cybercrime

A. Estafa indicators (practical)

A criminal complaint becomes more viable when:

There is clear misrepresentation (fake business, fake inventory, fake “proofs”)
The seller never intended to deliver
The seller used deceit to induce payment
The seller hides identity, blocks you, or repeats the scheme

B. Cyber-enabled fraud

Where the scheme uses online means, reporting may involve cybercrime units and may fall under cybercrime procedures for digital evidence preservation.

C. Evidence expectations in criminal complaints

For criminal cases, authorities often look for:

Multiple victims/pattern
Clear linkage between suspect and accounts used (bank/e-wallet, phone numbers, platform accounts)
Screenshots plus provider certifications where possible
Proof of deceit and intent, not just failure to deliver

D. Practical caution: criminal vs civil strategy

Criminal complaints can pressure resolution but:

Require higher proof thresholds
Can take longer
Still may not guarantee recovery unless assets/funds are traceable

10) Handling common scenarios

Scenario 1: Social media seller, bank transfer, then ghosted

Best approach:

Preserve evidence, send demand, report to platform (if any), and consider DTI + police/cybercrime complaint
The bank/e-wallet account details are critical identifiers

Scenario 2: Marketplace order, status “delivered” but you never received it

Best approach:

File an in-app dispute immediately
Request POD from courier
Provide evidence of non-receipt (no signature, wrong photo, wrong address)
Maintain consistent narrative: “Tagged delivered without actual receipt”

Scenario 3: Seller claims “lost by courier”

Best approach:

Ask for proof of handover to courier (drop-off receipt, pickup record)
In most consumer-facing arrangements, the seller/platform still must ensure delivery or refund, then pursue the courier separately depending on their contract

Scenario 4: Seller demands additional money to release the parcel

Best approach:

Treat as red flag; do not pay additional amounts without clear contractual basis
Demand refund; escalate to platform/DTI; consider criminal complaint if pattern indicates extortion/fraud

Scenario 5: Non-delivery of services or digital goods

Best approach:

Document deliverables promised (scope, timeline, outputs)
Demand performance or refund
Administrative complaint if consumer-facing; civil action if necessary

11) Drafting the complaint: structure and content (Philippine practice)

A clear complaint typically contains:

Parties
- Complainant name, address, contact
- Respondent seller/platform details (name, business name, address, contact, account handles)
Chronology of facts
- Date of order, payment, promised delivery, follow-ups, non-delivery status
Legal basis (brief)
- Breach of contract/consumer protection; request for relief
Reliefs prayed for
- Refund of amount paid
- Any documented consequential costs (e.g., shipping, replacement purchase)
- Administrative action if appropriate
Attachments (indexed)
- Receipts, screenshots, chat logs, tracking, demand letter, platform tickets

12) Practical enforcement issues: identity, address, and collection

Even with strong evidence, outcomes can be limited by:

Unknown real identity of the seller
Fake addresses or unregistered “stores”
Funds already withdrawn and dissipated
Cross-border sellers and jurisdiction challenges

Mitigations:

Use platforms with escrow and verified sellers
Prefer payment methods with dispute mechanisms
Verify business registration where feasible for high-value purchases
Avoid direct bank transfers to unknown sellers when alternatives exist

13) Prevention and best practices (legally relevant)

Keep all transaction communications within traceable channels
Screenshot the listing and seller page before paying
Avoid “too good to be true” pricing
Use COD or escrow where possible
Confirm return/refund policy and delivery timelines in writing
For high-value purchases, verify seller’s identity and business registration, request official invoice/receipt where applicable

14) Summary of primary remedies

A Philippine consumer facing non-delivery generally has four tracks, often used in combination:

Platform dispute/refund mechanisms (fastest when available)
DTI administrative complaint (mediation/conciliation; enforcement leverage)
Civil action / small claims (refund and damages; needs correct defendant details)
Criminal complaint (estafa/cybercrime) when fraud/deceit is provable and intentional

The strength of any route depends on documentary evidence, timeliness, and ability to identify the responsible party.