12 dangerous and that he suffered damage as a result of the defect or danger posed by the product.”17 Even if a product does not contain design or manufacturing defects, however, it may nonetheless be defective if the producer fails to provide adequate warnings about the dangers the product may pose or adequate instructions on how and to what extent the product may be used safely.18 Accordingly, the Restatement (Second) of Torts originally published in 1965 extended strict liability to cases involving failure to warn. The Third Restatement also agrees that inadequate warnings render a product defective “when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings…and the omission of the instructions or warnings renders the product not reasonably safe.” This is particularly important in cases where a product involves intrinsic hazards which cannot be avoided even when it is used as intended. The theory, as Professor Richard Wright explains, is that providing adequate warnings regarding inherent, irreducible risks enables users to make an informed choice about whether and to what extent to make use of the product, and to understand the potential hazards to which that choice may expose them and others. These “informed choice” warnings cannot reduce the risk involved in using the product, but can enable a person to avoid or minimize those risks by not using the product or by using less of it. 19 Because warning users of the intrinsic hazards of a product is so important to making informed choices, many jurisdictions, including the Philippines, recognize the failure to disclose these risks as a form of false advertising. Under Article 110 of the Consumer Act, for example, whether an advertisement is “false, deceptive or misleading” must take into account “the extent to which the advertisement fails to reveal material facts in the light of [its representations about the product], or material facts with respects to consequences which may result” from using the product in the customary manner. Similarly, §6.8 (Prohibited Acts) of Department Administrative Order Number 2, which defines the manufacturer responsibilities and liabilities with respect to products subject to mandatory certification, expressly prohibits the “[g]iving of false or misleading data/information, misrepresenting a material and substantial fact; or willfully concealing a material data or fact” about a product.20 17 J. Edgardo P. Cruz, Consumer Protection: Beyond Lip Service, available on the Court of Appeals website at http://ca.judiciary.gov.ph/index.php?action=mnuactual _contents&ap=j7080 (last accessed August 16, 2018). 18 BRUCE L. OTTLEY ET AL., UNDERSTANDING PRODUCTS LIABILITY LAW §7.01 [A] (LexisNexis/Matthew Bender, 2013). 19 Richard W. Wright, The Principles of Product Liability, in Symposium, Products Liability: Litigation Trends on the 10th Anniversary of the Third Restatement, 26 Rev. Litig. 1067, (2007), available online at: http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/fac_schol/719. 20 Department Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 2002, Defining the Responsibilities and Liabilities of Manufacturers, Importers, Traders, Wholesalers, Distributors, Retailers and or their