Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 44 views

    Stat Con Health Minister

    Uploaded by

    Ana Rose Cinco
    The Committee was formed to regulate medical standards for overseas workers. It revoked the accreditation of Ermita Medical Center for conducting examinations of other companies, though it was only accredited for one company. The Center appealed but the Committee did not act. The Court of Appeals found the revocation invalid because the rules were not published. The Supreme Court upheld this, noting that the rules were not in force since they were not published as required. It denied the petition and set aside the decision for lacking a statutory basis since the rules were not valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Stat Con Health Minister

    Uploaded by

    Ana Rose Cinco
    44 views2 pages
    The Committee was formed to regulate medical standards for overseas workers. It revoked the accreditation of Ermita Medical Center for conducting examinations of other companies, though it was only accredited for one company. The Center appealed but the Committee did not act. The Court of Appeals found the revocation invalid because the rules were not published. The Supreme Court upheld this, noting that the rules were not in force since they were not published as required. It denied the petition and set aside the decision for lacking a statutory basis since the rules were not valid.

    Original Title

    stat con health minister

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Committee was formed to regulate medical standards for overseas workers. It revoked the accreditation of Ermita Medical Center for conducting examinations of other companies, though it was only accredited for one company. The Center appealed but the Committee did not act. The Court of Appeals found the revocation invalid because the rules were not published. The Supreme Court upheld this, noting that the rules were not in force since they were not published as required. It denied the petition and set aside the decision for lacking a statutory basis since the rules were not valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    44 views2 pages

    Stat Con Health Minister

    Uploaded by

    Ana Rose Cinco
    The Committee was formed to regulate medical standards for overseas workers. It revoked the accreditation of Ermita Medical Center for conducting examinations of other companies, though it was only accredited for one company. The Center appealed but the Committee did not act. The Court of Appeals found the revocation invalid because the rules were not published. The Supreme Court upheld this, noting that the rules were not in force since they were not published as required. It denied the petition and set aside the decision for lacking a statutory basis since the rules were not valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    [Type here]

    FACTS:
    The Committee was formed to establish, regulate and upgrade the standards of medical service
    and/or examination of workers for overseas employment and to ensure that only occupationally
    qualified and physically and medically fit workers participate in the overseas employment program.

    The revocation was made pursuant to the Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Committee on
    June 1, 1983, covering all duly licensed and registered hospitals, medical clinics and laboratories
    desirous of offering their services to private employment agencies, recruitment entities and manning
    agencies in the medical examination of workers being hired for overseas employment

    Accredited medical clinics were classified into (a) regularly accredited medical clinics and (b) in-
    house clinics.

    Ermita Medical Center was issued a certificate of accreditation as an in-house medical clinic to
    service only Builders and Heavy Equipment Services Corporation (BHESCO), but this was revoked
    by the Committee on the ground that the Center was conducting medical examinations of other
    companies. Reinstated on April 11, 1984, after a motion for reconsideration, the accreditation was
    again revoked on November 9, 1984, on the basis of evidence submitted by the Accredited Medical
    clinics for Overseas Workers, Inc. of the respondent's violation of the Rules and Regulations.

    The Center sent a letter of appeal to the Health and Labor Ministers, but no action was taken
    thereon. On January 4, 1985, it filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals questioning the
    authority of the Committee to issue the Rules and Regulations and, assuming their validity, to revoke
    its accreditation as an in- house medical clinic.

    In its decision, the respondent court sustained the Rules and Regulations as a valid exercise of the
    police power intended "to ensure that only medically and physically fit workers will be sent overseas"
    and "to prevent Filipino workers from being stranded abroad upon being found to be physically unfit
    by their overseas employers." It also affirmed that the Committee was validly authorized to issue the
    Rules and Regulations under Section 79(B) of the Revised Administrative Code

    However, it held that the Committee had no competence to revoke the accreditation given to the
    Center because all it was empowered to do under the Rules and Regulations was to "recommend to
    appropriate authorities the proper sanctions to be taken" in case of violation of the said Rules and
    Regulations. Accordingly, the respondent court set aside the revocation by the Committee of the
    accreditation previously issued to the Center.

    Challenged in this petition for review is the decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 20, 1987,
    declaring null and void the decision of the Joint Ministry of Health Ministry of Labor and Employment
    Accreditation Committee revoking the accreditation of the Ermita Medical Center, Inc. as a medical
    clinic for overseas employment and the conduct of medical examinations

    ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of the Joint Ministry of Health Ministry of Labor and Employment
    Accreditation Committee revoking the accreditation of the Ermita Medical Center, Inc. as a medical
    clinic for overseas employment and the conduct of medical examinations is null and void based on
    the rules and regulation.
    RULING:
    The evidence before us shows that the Rules and Regulations issued by the Committee have never
    been published. In the absence of any refutation of this evidence, the Court must conclude that the
    said Rules and Regulations have indeed not come into force and so cannot be used as a basis for
    the resolution of the herein petition.

    While it is true that issues not raised in the courts below cannot generally be raised on appeal, the
    principle obviously cannot apply to cases like the one at bar where the claim is based on rules and
    regulations that have not yet become effective. It is settled that courts can enforce rights and redress
    wrongs only in accordance with laws existing and in force at the time the cause of action arose. In
    the controversy before us, the Rules and Regulations now under examination by the Court, and
    earlier by the respondent court, had not yet been published and so were not yet operating when the
    accreditation of the Center was revoked. Indeed, they have not been published to date and so
    continue to be without any force and effect whatsoever. We therefore cannot interpret and apply
    them as part of our laws.

    The Solicitor General is correct in observing that these new rules are not applicable to the present
    controversy, having been issued in 1990, long after this case arose in 1985. At any rate, it might be
    useful to verify if these new rules have already been published as now required by Executive Order
    No. 200, which was issued in compliance with the strict doctrine laid down in the Tañada case.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of statutory basis. The challenged decision is SET
    ASIDE for the same reason.  It is so ordered.
    1âwphi1

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy