G.R. No. 11045 - Tolentino vs. Paraiso

The Joint Ministry of Health-Ministry of Labor and Employment Accreditation Committee was established to set, regulate, and upgrade standards for medical services and examinations for overseas employment.
The Committee was empowered to issue Rules and Regulations (promulgated on June 1, 1983) governing the accreditation of licensed and registered hospitals, medical clinics, and laboratories that sought to offer their services to private recruitment and manning agencies.
Accredited medical clinics were classified into two categories:

Regularly accredited medical clinics, entitled to conduct examinations for all private recruitment firms or agencies.
In-house clinics, limited to conducting examinations exclusively for the companies to which they were affiliated.

Ermita Medical Center was initially issued a certificate of accreditation as an in-house medical clinic, designated to serve only Builders and Heavy Equipment Services Corporation (BHESCO).
The accreditation was revoked by the Committee on the ground that the Center was conducting medical examinations for companies other than BHESCO.
A motion for reconsideration led to the reinstatement of the accreditation on April 11, 1984; however, it was revoked again on November 9, 1984 following evidence presented by the Accredited Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers, Inc.

Following the revocations, the Ermita Medical Center sent an appeal letter to the Health and Labor Ministers, which elicited no action.
On January 4, 1985, the Center filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, questioning:

Whether the Committee had the statutory authority to issue the Rules and Regulations.
Whether the Committee was empowered to revoke the accreditation, or merely to recommend that appropriate authorities impose sanctions.

The Court of Appeals sustained the validity of the Rules and Regulations as a valid exercise of the police power and highlighted their purpose to ensure that only medically and physically fit workers be deployed overseas.

The respondent court held that the Committee was not empowered to directly revoke the accreditation—that its authority was limited to recommending sanctions rather than imposing them.
The Solicitor General, while conceding the validity and promulgation of the Rules and Regulations under delegated authority, maintained that withdrawal of accreditation is an administrative sanction that the Committee could directly impose.
The private respondent also contested the Committee’s authority to unilaterally classify clinics (full versus limited accreditation), arguing that such differentiation should be reserved for the Joint Ministries of Health and Labor.
Further, the Center questioned the Committee’s decision to grant full accreditation to several clinics after the cut-off date while denying a similar status to it, despite satisfying the financial bond requirement.

A crucial aspect of the controversy involved the issue of publication of the Rules and Regulations.
Drawing on the precedent set in Tanada v. Tuvera, the Court noted that for statutes, including administrative rules, to be enforceable, they must be published in the Official Gazette or an equivalent medium, a requirement not met by the Rules and Regulations in question.
Evidence, including a letter from the Director of the National Printing Office dated August 10, 1988, confirmed that the rules had never been submitted for publication, thus rendering them inoperative.

In a subsequent motion, the private respondent referenced Administrative Order No. 85-A, series of 1990, which purportedly corrected or amended defects in the old rules.
The Solicitor General clarified that the new rules did not apply to the present controversy, as they were issued long after the case arose.
Ultimately, the petition was examined in juxtaposition with the non-publication of the Rules and Regulations, underscoring that the rules could not provide a legal basis for the revocation of the Center’s accreditation.

Whether the Committee possessed the power to directly revoke the accreditation of a medical clinic or was limited to recommending sanctions for violations of the Rules and Regulations.
The extent of the Committee’s authority under Section 79(B) of the Revised Administrative Code concerning rule-making and enforcement.

Whether the Rules and Regulations, issued by the Committee, were validly promulgated given the requirement of publication.
Whether the non-publication of these rules rendered them inoperative and, consequently, unenforceable at the time of the accreditation revocation.

Whether the Committee’s classification between regularly accredited and in-house clinics was within its delegated powers.
Whether the selective granting of full accreditation to other clinics while denying it to the Ermita Medical Center constituted inequitable treatment.

Whether the issuance of Administrative Order No. 85-A, series of 1990, addressing previous defects in the Rules and Regulations, affected the present case.
The legal effect and applicability of the new rules in resolving challenges raised under the old, non-published rules.