Case Digest (G.R. No. 182358)
Facts:
The Secretary of Health, and Ma. Margarita M. Galon v. Phil Pharmawealth, Inc., G.R. No. 182358, February 20, 2013, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are The Secretary of Health (former Secretaries Alfredo G. Romualdez and Manuel Dayrit) and Ma. Margarita M. Galon (Undersecretary); respondent is Phil Pharmawealth, Inc. (PPI). The dispute arose from DOH administrative issuances and an administrative action suspending PPI’s accreditation as a government supplier of pharmaceutical products.
Beginning December 22, 1998, the DOH issued Administrative Order (AO) No. 27, s. 1998, later amended by AO 10, s. 2000 (further amended by AO 66, s. 2000) to set accreditation procedures and grounds for suspension or revocation. On August 28, 2000 the DOH issued Memorandum No. 171‑C listing sanctions for adverse BFAD findings. Pursuant to Memorandum No. 209, s. 2000, Undersecretary Galon convened a meeting on October 27, 2000 and handed attendees copies of the BFAD Report on Violative Products, directing accredited suppliers (including PPI) to submit explanations within ten days (until November 6, 2000).
PPI did not submit a substantive reply within the ten‑day period; instead it sent a belated letter dated November 13, 2000 informing Galon that PPI had referred the Report to its lawyers. By letter dated November 23, 2000 Undersecretary Galon suspended PPI’s accreditation for two years pursuant to AO 10 and Memorandum No. 171‑C. PPI protested in a December 14, 2000 letter, asserting that suspension without hearing violated Section 26(d) of Republic Act No. 3720 as amended by Executive Order No. 175, and demanding that the DOH desist from implementing the suspension.
On December 28, 2000 PPI filed suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Civil Case No. 68200, seeking to declare AO 10, Memorandum No. 171‑C, the suspension letter, and later AO 14 void; it prayed for damages (moral, exemplary, attorneys’ fees) and injunctive relief. The RTC partially granted temporary restraining relief on January 8, 2001 for products not listed as violative. Petitioners moved to dismiss, asserting state immunity, defective verification, and lack of corporate authority to sue; PPI opposed.
In a June 14, 2004 Order, the RTC (Branch 160) dismissed Civil Case No. 68200 as an unauthorized suit against the State. PPI filed for reconsideration which was denied, and appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated October 25, 2007 (CA‑G.R. CV No. 85670), reversed the RTC, finding dismissal premature because the Complaint...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should Civil Case No. 68200 be dismissed for being a suit against the State? ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)