Joint Ministry of Health-Ministry of Labor and Employment Accreditation Committee for Medical Clinics v. CA and Ermita Medical Center (1991)

Joint Ministry of Health-Ministry of Labor and Employment Accreditation Committee for Medical Clinics v. CA and Ermita Medical Center

G.R. No. 78254

April 25, 1991

FACTS

·       Joint Ministry of Health-Ministry of Labor and Employment Accreditation Committee for Medical Clinics (Petitioner)

o   Formed to establish, regulate and upgrade standards of medical service/examination of workers for overseas employment

·       Respondents:

o   Ermita Medical Center

·       Issued certificate of accreditation as an in-house medical clinic to service only Builders and Heavy Equipment Services Corporation (BHESCO)

·       Revoked by the committee; the Center was conducting medical examinations for other companies

·       April 11, 1984: Accreditation was instated

·       November 9, 1984: Revoked again after a motion for reconsideration

§  Based o evidence submitted by Accredited Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers, Inc. of the respondent’s violation of the Rules and Regulations

o   Court of Appeals

o   Ceferino Padua Law Office (Private respondent) 

ISSUE/S:

·        Whether or not a law is enforced without publication in the Official gazette

JUDGMENT:

·       Petition is DENIED for lack of statutory basis.

o   Challenged decision is SET ASIDE for the same reason.

HOLDING/RATIONALE:

·       No.

o   See Tanada v. Tuvera

·       Rules and Regulations have not come into force and so cannot be used as a basis for the resolution of the herein petition.

o   Rules and Regulations of the Committee have never been published.

o   Not been published (to date) and so continue to be without any force and effect whatsoever.

·       Cannot be interpreted and applied as part of our laws.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

·       January 4, 1985 - Ermita Medical Center filed petition for certiorari to CA

o   Questioning the authority of the Committee to issue the Rules and Regulations and, assuming their validity, to revoke its accreditation as in-house medical clinic

·       April 20, 1987 - CA declared null and void the decision of the Joint Ministry of Health-Ministry of Labor and Employment Accreditation Committee; set aside the revocation by the committee of the accreditation to the Center

o   Revoking the accreditation of the Ermita Medical Center, Inc. as a medical clinic for overseas employment and the conduct of medical examinations.

·       Pursuant to Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Committee (June 1, 1983) covering all licensed and registered hospitals, clinics, labs

o   Findings:

·       Sustained the Rules of Regulations as valid exercise of police power

·       Affirmed that the Committee was validly authorized to issue the Rules and Regulations under Section 79 (B) of the revised administrative code (“Power to Regulate”)

·       Committee HAD NO competence to revoke the accreditation given to the Center; it is only empowered to “recommend to appropriate authorities the proper sanctions to be taken” (accdg. Rules and Regulations)

·       OSG: Rules and Regulations were indeed enacted under the police power pursuant to the above-stated objectives and by virtue of properly delegated authority; disagrees with the ruling that the Committee cannot impose the sanction of revocation, the Committee is empowered to impose remedial or civil sanctions, as distinguished from penal sanctions (which require specific legislative authority)

o   Withdrawal of accreditation, like revocation of license is an administrative sanction the committee could directly impose.

·       Respondent called the attention of the Court to a letter from the Director of the National Printing Office inquiring if the Omnibus Rules implementing the Labor Code have been published in the Official Gazette.

o   Records show that the Omnibus Rules were not submitted to this Office for publication in the Official Gazette.

o   No refutation of the respondent’s argument that the Rules of Regulations were not enforceable because they had never been published. (Tanada v. Tuvera)