G.R. No. 124086 - Sison vs. Court of Appeals

Case Digest (G.R. No. 124086)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Background and Procedural History

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated 27 February 1996.
Petitioner Godofredo S. Sison, in his capacity as Deputy Administrator of the Social Security System (SSS), and the SSS Regional Manager for Region 6 were ordered to pay Medicare claims filed by respondent Dr. Concepcion O. Lim-Tan.
The claims arose under the Medical Care Program (Medicare) involving two hospitals: Leona O. Lim Memorial Hospital (LLMH) and Paulina Lim Memorial Hospital (PLMH).

Medicare Claims and Correspondence

The SSS Cebu City Regional Office, then managed by the petitioner, received several Medicare claims from respondent covering the period August 1988 to April 1989.

Claims for LLMH amounted to ₱1,654,345.00.
Claims for PLMH amounted to ₱765,861.95.

Respondent, being the proprietor and administrator of the two hospitals, made repeated oral and written demands for payment.
In a demand letter dated 3 June 1989, respondent relied on Medicare Circular No. 258 (dated 12 October 1988), which set forth guidelines on claims processing, including:

Comparison of hospital claims with established statistics.
Investigation of any deviation.
Options for handling doubtful claims: filing a case within 90 days to suspend payment or paying within 90 days subject to pre-audit.

Allegations of Fraud and Tampered Claims

Petitioner alleged that several claims from the two hospitals were systematically tampered with through:

Forgery of claimants’ signatures.
Reimbursement claims for services allegedly rendered to non-admitted persons.
Use of other members’ SSS memberships to pay hospital charges.

The SSS Cebu City Regional Office segregated the allegedly tampered claims from the valid ones based on an internal memorandum warning against fraudulent practices.
Despite the irregularities, petitioner did not suspend payment within the requisite 90-day period by filing the corresponding administrative or criminal cases.

Trial Court Proceedings and Ruling

On 3 July 1989, respondent filed a civil case for mandamus and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City (Special Civil Case No. 4522).
The trial court, in its decision dated 24 August 1990, ruled in favor of respondent, ordering:

Payment of the full Medicare claims – ₱1,654,345.00 for LLMH and ₱765,861.95 for PLMH.
Award of additional moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses.

Petitioner raised several issues in his appeal, including allegations pertaining to the discretionary nature of his duty and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Appellate Court Decision

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification:

It held that petitioner’s discretionary authority did not exempt him from the duty to pay respondent’s Medicare claims.
The CA reduced the award by applying PMCC Resolution No. 89-2074, ordaining that only 80% of the total claims be paid.
The appellate court deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages and modified the award on attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.

Accordingly, the CA ordered the payment of:

80% of the total ₱2,420,206.90 claims (net amount after previous payments adjusted to ₱881,560.91).
Attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the net claim.
A fixed litigation expense of ₱10,000.00.

Issues Leading to the Petition

Dissatisfied with the appellate ruling, petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme Court raising issues regarding:

Whether mandamus can compel the payment of respondent’s claims.
The necessity for respondent to exhaust administrative remedies.
The applicability and limits of petitioner’s discretionary authority in withholding payment.

Issues:

Mandamus and Compulsion of Payment

Whether the petitioner, in his official capacity, can be compelled by mandamus to pay respondent’s Medicare claims despite exercising discretionary oversight over the claims process.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Whether respondent should have exhausted administrative remedies (by appealing to the Philippine Medical Care Commission) prior to filing a court action.
Whether petitioner’s failure to follow the prescribed procedure under Medicare Circular No. 258 automatically affects respondent’s right to file suit.

Extent of Petitioner’s Liability

The legality of mandating the payment of the total claimed amounts versus the 80% payment scheme implied by PMCC Resolution No. 89-2074.
Whether the trial and appellate courts properly quantified petitioner’s duty in light of the allegations of fraudulent claims and allegations of bad faith.
The propriety of awarding moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees given the discretionary nature of the petitioner’s administrative role.
Whether the petitioner’s actions, aimed at protecting government funds from fraudulent claims, justify or excuse the delay in payment to respondent.

Abuse of Discretion by the Lower Courts

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion by:

Misapplying the provisions of PMCC Resolution No. 89-2074.
Overlooking substantive facts that might justify a different conclusion.
Improperly holding petitioner liable for costs including attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Case Digest (G.R. No. 124086) Core Legal Reasoning Model Expanded

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 124086) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 124086)
Core Legal Reasoning Model

Expanded

Case Digest (G.R. No. 124086)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model