Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3K views

    27 Amcow V GCC Digest

    Uploaded by

    elobenia
    1) The DOH issued orders directing the "decking or equal distribution" of migrant workers among medical clinics to comply with GCC requirements. Later orders suspended and repealed this referral decking system. 2) GAMCA challenged these DOH orders in court. The RTC heard the case but it did not have jurisdiction as challenges to quasi-judicial acts of government agencies must be filed with the Court of Appeals. 3) While the DOH did not follow due process in issuing its orders without a hearing, its actions did not constitute grave abuse of discretion given the policies of RA 10022 to protect migrant workers. The prohibition on referral decking aims to uphold these policies.

    Copyright:

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

    27 Amcow V GCC Digest

    Uploaded by

    elobenia
    3K views2 pages
    1) The DOH issued orders directing the "decking or equal distribution" of migrant workers among medical clinics to comply with GCC requirements. Later orders suspended and repealed this referral decking system. 2) GAMCA challenged these DOH orders in court. The RTC heard the case but it did not have jurisdiction as challenges to quasi-judicial acts of government agencies must be filed with the Court of Appeals. 3) While the DOH did not follow due process in issuing its orders without a hearing, its actions did not constitute grave abuse of discretion given the policies of RA 10022 to protect migrant workers. The prohibition on referral decking aims to uphold these policies.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    27 Amcow v Gcc Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The DOH issued orders directing the "decking or equal distribution" of migrant workers among medical clinics to comply with GCC requirements. Later orders suspended and repealed this referral decking system. 2) GAMCA challenged these DOH orders in court. The RTC heard the case but it did not have jurisdiction as challenges to quasi-judicial acts of government agencies must be filed with the Court of Appeals. 3) While the DOH did not follow due process in issuing its orders without a hearing, its actions did not constitute grave abuse of discretion given the policies of RA 10022 to protect migrant workers. The prohibition on referral decking aims to uphold these policies.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    3K views2 pages

    27 Amcow V GCC Digest

    Uploaded by

    elobenia
    1) The DOH issued orders directing the "decking or equal distribution" of migrant workers among medical clinics to comply with GCC requirements. Later orders suspended and repealed this referral decking system. 2) GAMCA challenged these DOH orders in court. The RTC heard the case but it did not have jurisdiction as challenges to quasi-judicial acts of government agencies must be filed with the Court of Appeals. 3) While the DOH did not follow due process in issuing its orders without a hearing, its actions did not constitute grave abuse of discretion given the policies of RA 10022 to protect migrant workers. The prohibition on referral decking aims to uphold these policies.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No. 207132. December 6, 2016.

    ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL CLINICS FOR OVERSEAS WORKERS, INC. (AMCOW), represented herein by its President, DR.
    ROLANDO VILLOTE, petitioner,
    vs.
    GCC APPROVED MEDICAL CENTERS ASSOCIATION, INC. and CHRISTIAN CANGCO, respondents.

    Facts
    On March 8, 2001, the DOH issued Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 2001 (AO 5-01) which directed the decking or equal
    distribution of migrant workers among the several clinics who are members of GAMCA.

    AO 5-01 was issued to comply with the Gulf Cooperative Countries (GCC) States' requirement that only GCC-accredited medical
    clinics/hospitals' examination results will be honored by the GCC States' respective embassies. It required an OFW applicant to
    first go to a GAMCA Center which, in turn, will refer the applicant to a GAMCA clinic or hospital.

    Subsequently, the DOH issued AO No. 106, Series of 2002 holding in abeyance the implementation of the referral decking
    system. The DOH reiterated its directive suspending the referral decking system in AO No. 159, Series of 2004.

    In 2004, the DOH issued AO No. 167, Series of 2004 repealing AO 5-01, reasoning that the referral decking system did not
    guarantee the migrant workers' right to safe and quality health service.

    GAMCA questioned the DOH's Memorandum No. 2008-0210 before the Office of the President (OP). In a
    decision dated January 14, 2010, the OP nullified Memorandum No. 2008-0210.

    On August 13, 2010, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 8042, as amended by RA No. 10022, took effect.

    Pursuant to Section 16 of RA No. 10022, the DOH, through its August 23, 2010 letter-order, directed GAMCA to cease and
    desist from implementing the referral decking system and to wrap up their operations within three (3) days from receipt
    thereof. GAMCA received its copy of the August 23, 2010 letter-order on August 25, 2010.

    On August 26, 2010, GAMCA filed with the RTC of Pasig City a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a writ of
    preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order (GAMCA's petition). It assailed: (1) the DOH's August 23, 2010 letter-
    order on the ground of grave abuse of discretion; and (2) paragraphs c.3 and c.4, Section 16 of RA No. 10022, as well as Section
    1 (c) and (d), Rule XI of the IRR, as unconstitutional.

    Issue

    1. WON the Regional Trial Court legally erred in giving due course to the petition for certiorari and prohibition against
    the DOH CDO letters;

    2. WON the DOH CDO letters prohibiting GAMCA from implementing the referral decking system embodied under
    Section 16 of Republic Act No. 10022 violates Section 3, Article II of the 1987 Constitution for being an undue taking
    of property;

    Held
    1.
    Since the DOH is part of the Executive Department and has acted in its quasi-judicial capacity, the petition challenging its CDO
    letter should have been filed before the Court of Appeals. The RTC thus did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
    petitions and erred in giving due course to the petition for certiorari and prohibition against the DOH CDO letters. In procedural
    terms, petitions for certiorari and prohibition against a government agency are remedies available to assail its quasi-judicial
    acts, and should thus have been filed before the CA.

    The provision in Section 4, Rule 65 requiring that certiorari petitions challenging quasi-judicial acts to be filed with the CA is in
    full accord with Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 on the same point. Section 9 provides:

    Section 9. Jurisdiction.—The Court of Appeals shall exercise:


    1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and
    auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;

    Thus, by law and by Supreme Court Rules, the CA is the court with the exclusive original jurisdiction to entertain petitions for
    certiorari and prohibition against quasi-judicial agencies. In short, GAMCA filed its remedy with the wrong court.

    A.4.c The petitions for certiorari and prohibition against the DOH CDO letters were premature challenges — they failed to
    comply with the requirement that there be “no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy” and with the doctrine of
    exhaustion of administrative remedies

    -
    2.
    The DOH did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the assailed DOH CDO letters.

    The letter-order implementing the prohibition against the referral decking system is quasi-judicial in nature. This characteristic
    requires that procedural due process be observed - that is, that the clinics concerned be given the opportunity to be heard
    before the standard found in the law can be applied to them.

    Factual circumstances unique to the present case, however, lead us to conclude that while it was an error of law for the DOH to
    issue a CDO without complying with the requirements of procedural due process, its action did not amount to a grave abuse of
    discretion.

    Grave abuse of discretion amounts to more than an error of law; it refers to an act that is so capricious, arbitrary, and
    whimsical that it amounts to a clear evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where
    the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility

    We note that RA No. 10022 expressly reflects the declared State policies to "uphold the dignity of its citizens whether in the
    country or overseas, in general, and Filipino migrant workers," and to "afford full protection to labor, local and overseas,
    organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. Towards this end,
    the State shall provide adequate and timely social, economic and legal services to Filipino migrant workers." The prohibition
    against the referral decking system in Section 16 of RA No. 10022 is an expression and implementation of these state policies.

    You might also like