All published reports
SUH-BES4-GCMYUnder review
Alleged Improper Fire Extinguisher Recommendations During BFP Safety Inspections
The reporter alleges that fire safety inspection personnel may be recommending specific fire extinguisher products and suppliers during company inspections. Concerns include potentially unnecessary requirements, significant price differences, and possible conflicts of interest.
This is an allegation, not a finding of guilt
A moderator is checking the details and evidence. Names and identifying details have been removed. How we review reports.
What the reporter described
The reporter expresses concerns regarding fire safety inspections conducted by the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP), particularly the recurring safety findings and recommendations reportedly issued when companies renew their Fire Safety Inspection Certificates.
According to the submitted account, certain inspection personnel allegedly recommend the purchase of green-colored HFC-236 fire extinguishers, reportedly costing approximately ₱10,000, compared with red-colored ABC dry chemical fire extinguishers reportedly costing approximately ₱2,000.
The reporter questions whether these recommendations are necessary when alternative fire extinguishers may also be effective for suppressing incipient fires. The account further alleges that some personnel recommend particular stores where the prescribed equipment can be purchased.
These circumstances have raised concerns about possible conflicts of interest, unnecessary expenses for businesses, and potential improper practices in fire safety inspections.
The reporter also expresses frustration that the affected company is reportedly unwilling to pursue formal legal action.
The allegations have not been independently verified. Further investigation would be necessary to determine whether the recommendations comply with applicable fire safety regulations, whether the specified equipment is legally required, and whether any personnel have engaged in improper conduct.
Review timeline
Received
Report received.
November 2, 2026
Evidence requested
November 2, 2026
Under review
November 2, 2026
Redacted version published
November 2, 2026
Responses
To protect everyone involved, there are no public comments.