Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
~ttpreme
QCourt
j'jaguio QI:itp
EN BANC
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en bane issued a Resolution
dated APRIL 14, 2015, which reads as follows:
The respondents filed: (I) Most Urgent Motion for Issuance o f Temporary Restraining Order/Writ
of Preliminary Injunction/Status Quo Ante Order (wit~ Request for Immediate Inclusion in the Honorable
Court's Agenda for Tomorrow, 3 March 2015) dated March 2, 2015; and (2) Most Urgent Reiterating
Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restrai ni ng Order/Writ of Preliminary Injunction/Status Quo Ante
Order dated March 11, 2015.
i
RA 10022 became effective on May 9, 20 10.
<r<'
~\~
-2-
Notice of Resolution
. On August 25, 2010, GAMCA ru1d Christian Cangco, as a GAMCAmember Clinic owner, (respondent,\) immediately filed against the DOH. a
petition for certiorari .and. prohibition with prayers for a temporary
restr(lining order and a writ of preliminary injunction before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 110.
The respondents assailed the constih1tionality of Section 23 (c.3) and
(c.4) of the Migrant Workers' Act, as amended, as well as Section 1 (c) and
(d), Rule 11 of the IRR6 for being violative of the GCC States' right .to
sovereignty. They posited that the GCC States have the right to iri1plement
the decking practice here in the .Philippines.
'.?ollo,.pp. 39-1~0.
rhe lmplemen!mg Rules and Regulations of the Migrant Workers' Act, as amended.
Cy'"'/
~~
..
~~
'
Notice of Resolution
-3-
8
.
Act, as amended, as well as Section 1 (c) and (d), Rule 11 of the IRR.
The petlt10ners assailed the RTC decision through a pet1t10n for
Court.' The Association of Medical
review on certiorari before the
.
. Clinics
for Overseas Workers, Inc.'s (AMCOW's) petition was docketed as G.R. No.
207132 while the Republic of the Philippines' petition was docketed as G.R.
No~ 207205. On September .17, 2013, the Court consolidated G.R. Nos.
207132 and 207205 upon AMCOW~s motion for consolidation.9
In the present motions, the respondents informed the Court that the
DOH issued an order dated February 20, .2015 which: (1) commanclls
GAMCA to cease and desist from continuing the decking practice; and
(2) warns GAMCA that its continued violation of the law \voulcl result
in the revocation of its DOH-accreditation as well as the closure of its
member clinics.
The respoD:dents pray for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order/writ of prel.i minary injunction/status quo ante order against the
implementation of the February 20, 2015 order. They assert that the DOH
violated the permanent injunction issued by the RTC _in its August 10, 2012
decision. They further opine that the issuance the February 20, 2015 order
is contrary to the su.b Judice rule. They ins_ist that the implementation of the
decking practice is the GCC .S tates' sov_ereign prerogative.
of
of
-4-
Notice of Resolution
be
10
The respondents filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a
writ. of preliminary injunction and asked the trial com1 to issue a permanent injunction in the body of
the petition. The RTC partly granted the petition and issued a writ of preliminary injunction and a
permanent injunction in this case.
A permanent injmiction is a main action that is covered by Section 4, Rule 39 of the Rules of
C o11t.. ln Urbanes v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. I l7964, March 28, 200 1), the Court explained that the
111ai11 action of injunction or a permanent injunction seeks a judgment embodying a final injunction which
.is distinct from the provisional remedy ofpr.eliminary injunction.
11
The RTC permanently enjoined the implementation of the August ~3, 201 0 and November 2, 2010
orders, and not the February 20, 2015 order. However, the February 20, 20 15 essentially reiterates the
August 23, 2010 and Novcmber2, 2010 orders.
Notice of Resolution
-5-
xx xx
(c.3) No group or groups of medical clinics shall have a
monopoly of exclusively conducting health examinations
on migrant workers for certai~ receiving countries;
(c.4) Every Filipino migrant worker shall have the freedom
to choose any of the DOH-accredited or DO~-I-01:ierated
clinics that will conduct his/her health examinations and
that his or her. rights as a patient are respected. The
decking practice, which requires an overseas Filipino
worker to go first to an office for registration and tben
farmed out to a medical clinic located elsewhere, shall
not be allowed; [Emphasis and underlining outs.]
RULE XI
ROLE Of DOH
Section 1. Regulation o(Medical Clinics.
The Department of Health (DOH) shall regulate the activities
and operations of ~ll clinics which conduct medical, physical, optical,
dental, psychological and other similar examinations, hereinafter
referred to as health examinations, on Filipino migrant workers as
requirement for their overseas employment. Pre-Employment
Medical Examinations (PEME) for overseas work.applicants shall be
performed only in :DOH-accredited me.dical clinics and health
facilities utilizing the standards set forth by DOH. Pursuant to this, the
DOH shall ensure that:
(a) The fees for the health ex.amillations are regulated, regularly monitored .
and duly published to enstire that the said fees are reasonable and not
exorpitant. The DOH shall set a minimum and maximum range of fees
for the different examinations to be conducted, based on a thorough
an.d periodic review of the cost of health examinations and after
consultation with concerned stakeholders. The applicant-worker shall
pay d1rectly to the DOH-accredited medical clinics or health facilities
where the PEME is to be conducted;
(b) The Filipino migrant workers shall only be required to tmdergo health
examinations when there is reasonable certainty as certified by the
hiring recruitment/manning agency pursuant. to POEA Rules and
Regulations that he/she will be hired and deployed to. the jobsite and
only those health examinations which are absolutely necessary for the
type of job applied for or those specifically required by the foreign
employer shall be conducted;
(c) No gr~up or gr.oups of medical clinics sl1all have a monopoly of
exclusively conducting health examinations on migrant workers
for certain receiving com~tries;
Notice of Resolution
-6-
;<:'
yr
~~
Notice of Resolution
-7-
ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
By:
o/t~~~~
FELIPA B. ANAMA
Deputy Clerk of Court
En tnc.
12
Ermita v. A.ldecoa-Delorino, G.R. No. 177 130, June 7, 201 1, 651 SCRA 141-142, citing St. James
College of Paranaque v. Equitable PC! Bank, G.R. No. 17944 1, Augst 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 328.
JJ
Accreditation is akin to a license which is defi ned in Section 2 (I 0), Chapter I, Book 7 of the
Administrative Codes as the whole or any part of any agency permit, certificate, passport, clearance,
approval, registration, charter, membership, statutory exernptio'n or other form of permission, or regulation
of the exercise of a rioht or privilege. Administrative Order No. 181, series of2004, defines accreditation as
a formal authorizati~1 issued by the DOH to an individual, partnership, corporation or association to
operate a medical facility for overseas workers and seafarers.
.Notice of Resolution
-8-
,/