WIsHaY-B PH I: 25 Republic of the Philippines aie bt Supreme Court wait Baguio City omen mona EN BANC aecesveas wotew ey i NOTIC wee . *OUAS pte dp Sirs/Mesdames: —aa__ ve Please take notice that the Court en bane issued a Resolution yl jated APRIL 14, 2015, which reads as follows. ¢ a pote ai “G.R. No. 207132 (ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL CLINICS FOR OVERSEAS WORKERS, INC. (AMCOW), represented herein by its President, DR. ROLANDO VILLOTE, petitioner -versus- GCC APPROVED MEDICAL CENTERS ASSOCIATION, INC. and CHRISTIAN E. CANGCO, respondents.); and G.R. No. 207205 (HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Health, petitioner -versus- GCC APPROVED MEDICAL CENTERS ASSOCIATION, INC. and CHRISTIAN E. CANGCO, respondents.) — For the Court’s resolution are the motions for the issuance of a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction/status quo ante order! against the implementation of the Department of Health’s (DOH’s) February 20, 2015 order. Prior to the enactment of Republic Act No. 10022 (RA 10022) on March 8, 2010,” the DOH allowed the decking of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) in the conduct of their pre-employment medical examinations. Decking is a practice whereby an OFW is required to register for pre- employment medical examination with a group of medical clinics, which subsequently farms out the OFW to a medical clinic located elsewhere. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) States — whose member States are Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain ~ strictly adhered to the decking practice prior to the effectivity of RA 10022. The embassies of the GCC States would not process the OFW’s work visa application if the medical certificate attached to the application did not bear the seal of a GCC-accredited group of medical clinics. The ‘The respondents filed: (1) Most Urgent Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining, Order/Writ of Preliminary Injunction/Status Quo Ante Order (with 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 Restraining Order/Writ of Preliminary Injunction/Status Quo Ante we ‘Order dated March 11, 2015, RA 10022 became effective on May 9, 2010.Notice of Resolution -2- G.R. No. 207132, etal. _ April 14, 2015 decking practice was believed to be an effective mechanism of preventing alien workers who were suffering from communicable diseases from entering the receiving country. The problem with the decking practice, however, is that the GCC Approved Medical Centers Association, Inc. (GAMCA) was the sole medical group accredited by the GCC to conduct pre-employment medical examinations on the OFWs bound to the GCC States.’ This means that GAMCA's member clinics had the monopoly of conducting medical examinations on OFWs bound to the GCC States. Most of GAMCA’s member clinics were located in Metro Manila. Thus, the OF Ws were forced to travel to Metro Manila and to incur travel, lodging and food expenses for the conduct of their pre-employment medical examination alone. Congress addressed these problems by enacting RA 10022, which amended RA 8042 or the Migrant Workers’ Act. Under the amendatory law, Congress expressly empowers the DOH to regulate the activities and operations of all clinics that conduct pre- employment medical examinations on OF Ws. RA 10022 likewise prohibits the decking practice and grants the OFWs the statutory right to choose any of the DOH-accredited or DOH-operated clinics that will conduct their pre- employment health examinations. On August 23, 2010, the DOH issued an order commanding GAMCA to cease and desist from implementing the decking practice, and to “wrap up” its operations within three days from the receipt thereof. On August 25, 2010, GAMCA and Christian Cangco, as a GAMCA- member clinic owner, (respondents) immediately filed against the DOH a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayers for a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 110. The respondents assailed the constitutionality 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 IRR® for being violative of the GCC States’ right to sovereignty. They posited that the GCC States have the right to implement the decking practice here in the Philippines. > RTC rolle, Volume I, pp. 135 and 141. ‘The Migrant Workers" Act, as amended, Section 23. 5 Rollo, pp. 39-140. ‘The Implementing Rules and Regulations ofthe Migrant Workers’ Act,Notice of Resolution -3- G.R. No. 207132, et al. April 14, 2015 On November 2, 2010, the DOH issued another cease and desist order against GAMCA and warned GAMCA that its non-compliance with the law would result in the revocation of its accreditation. On August 1, 2011, RTC Judge Maria Ragasa issued a writ of inary injunction in favor of the respondents. Ina decision dated August 10, 2012, the RTC nullified the August 23, 2010 and November 2, 2010 orders and permanently enjoined the DOH from implementing these orders. The RTC ruled that the prohibition against the decking practice only applies to cases where the receiving States do not require this practice as a prerequisite for the processing of work visa applications. It opined that the GCC States’ right to sovereign equality and independence would be violated if GAMCA would be prohibited from continuing the decking practice. Significantly, the RTC did not touch the issue of the nality 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 IRR. The petitioners assailed the RTC decision through a petition for review on certiorari before the Court. The Association of Medical 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.” In the present motions, the respondents informed the Court that the DOH issued an order dated February 20, 2015 which: (1) commands GAMCA to cease and desist from continuing the decking practice; and (2) warns GAMCA that its continued violation of the law would result in the revocation of its DOH-accreditation as well as the closure of its member clinics. The respondents pray for the issuance of a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary 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 of the February 20, 2015 order is contrary to the sub judice rule. They insist that the implementation of the decking practice is the GCC States’ sovereign prerogative. ‘e deny/the respondents’ motions. 7 RIC rollo, Volume Il], pp. 247-250. On June 1, 2011, Judge Petronilo Sulla, Jr. voluntarily inhibited himself from participating in the case. Subsequently, the case was raffled to Judge Maria Ragasa of the RTC of Pasay City, Branch 108. Dated August 10, 2012; rollo, pp. 38-48. * Rollo, pp. 312-319. oeNotice of Resolution G.R. No. 207132, et al. April 14, 2015 Under Section 4, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, judgments in actions for injunction shall be enforceable after their rendition and shall not be stayed by an appeal taken therefrom. As an exception to this rule, the appellate court in its discretion may make an order suspending, modifying, restoring or granting the injunction as may be considered proper for the security or protection of the rights of the adverse party.’ The circumstances of this case raised — compel us to temporarily issued by the trial court in favor of the larly the constitutional issue Suspend the permanent injunction Kespondents." Without ruling on the merits of the case, we observe that the RTC did not rule on the constitutionality of the assailed provisions of the Migrant Workers’ Act,4 amende¥, and its implementing rules. Since the assailed provisions remain valid and subsisting, the DOH, as an executive department, h ‘solemn duty to faithfully implement the prohibition against the decking practice on all DOH-accredited medical clinics. A plain reading of the Migrant Workers’ Act, as amended, and its implementing rules shows that the decking practice is absolutely prohibited in the Philippine jurisdiction, to wit: ‘The Migrant Workers’ Act, as amended Section 23. Role of Government Agencies. - The following government agencies shall perform the following to promote the welfare and protect the rights of migrant workers and, as far as applicable, all overseas Filipinos: XXXX (©) Department of Health. - The Department of Health (DOH) shall regulate the activities and operations of all clinics which conduct medical, physical, optical, dental, psychological and other similar ‘ions, hereinafter referred to as health examinations, on ipino migrant workers as requirement for their overseas employment. Pursuant to this, the DOH shall ensure that: ‘The respondents filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of @ weit of preliminary injunction and asked the trial court to issue a permanent injunction in the body of the petition. The RTC parily granted the petition and issued a writ of preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction in this case. ‘A permanent injunction is a main action that is covered by Section the Rules of Court, In Urbanes v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 117964, March 28, 2001), the Court explained that the ‘main action of injunction or a permanent injunction seeks a judgment embodying a final injunction which is distinct from the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction H¥ ‘The RTC permanently enjoined the implementation of the August 23, 2010 and November 2, 2010 orders, and not the February 20, 2015 order. However, the February 20, 2015 essentially reiterates the ‘August 23, 2010 and November 2, 2010 orders. orGR. No. 207132, et al. April 14, 2015 Notice of Resolution XXXX (c.3) No group or groups of medical clinics shall have a monopoly of exclusively conducting health examinations on migrant workers for certain receiving countries; (c.4) Every Filipino migrant worker shall have the freedom to choose any of the DOH-aceredited or DOH-operated clinics that will conduct his/her health examinations and that his or her rights as a patient are respected. decking practice, which requires an_ overseas Filipino worker to go first to an office for registration and then farmed out to a medical clinic located elsewhere, shall not be allowed; [Emphasis and underlining ours.] The IRR of the Migrant Workers’ Act RULE XI ROLE OF DOH Section 1. Regulation of Medical Clinics. The Department of Health (DOH) shall regulate the activities and operations of all 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 medical 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 examinations are regulated, regularly monitored and duly published to ensure that the said fees are reasonable and not exorbitant. The DOH shall set a minimum and maximum range of fees for the different examinations to be conducted, based on a thorough and periodic review of the cost of health examinations and after consultation with concerned stakeholders. The applicant-worker shall pay directly 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 undergo health examinations when there is reasonable certainty as certified by the hiring recruitmenmanning 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; (© No group or groups of medical clinics shall have a monopoly of vr exclusively conducting health examinations on migrant workers for certain receiving countries;Notice of Resolution GR. No. 207132, et al. April 14, 2015 (@) Every Filipino migrant worker shall have the freedom to choose any of the DOH-accredited or DOH-operated ‘clinics that will conduct his/her health examinations and that his/her rights as a patient are respected. The decking practice, which requires overseas Filipino workers to go first to an office for registration and then farmed out to a medical clinic located elsewhere, shall not be allowed; (©) Within period of three (3) years from the effectivity of the Act, all DOH regional and/or provincial hospitals under local government units shall establish and operate clinics that can serve the health examination requirements of Filipino migrant workers to provide them easy access to such clinics all over the country and lessen their transportation and lodging expenses; and (f) All DOH-aceredited medical clinics, including the DOH-operated clinics, conducting health examinations for Filipino migrant workers shall observe the same standard operating procedures and shall comply with internationally-accepted standards in their operations to conform with the requirements of receiving countries or of foreign employers/principals. Sec. 2. Temporary Disqualification of Foreign Employers. Any foreign employer who does not honor the results of valid health examinations conducted by a DOH-accredited or DOH- operated clinie shall be temporarily disqualified from participating in the overseas employment program, pursuant to POEA Rules and Regulations. The temporary disqualification of the employer may be lifted only upon the latter’s unqualified acceptance of the result of the examination. [Emphasis ours.] It is a basic rule that the administrative agency has to ensure the law’s faithful implementation unle: ie is declared unconstitutional with finality. Thus, the DOH is Git implement Section 23 of the Migrant Workers’ Act, as ama pending the Court’s determination of: (1) whether the decking practice is allowed in the pre-employment medical examination of OFWs bound to the GCC States; and (2) whether the prohibition against the decking practice is unconstitutional for alleged violation of the GCC States’ right to sovereign equality and independence. Section 23 of the Migrant Workers’ Act, as amended, unequivocally provides that the decking practice shall not be allowed and no group of medical clinics shall exclusively conduct health examinations on migrant workers. It further allows any DOH-accredited medical clinics and health facilities to conduct pre-employment medical examinations on OFW applicants. Moreover, the respondents failed to convince this Court that GAMCA possesses a clear and unmistakable right or a right in esse that is sought to be of ®Notice of Resolution ve GRR. No. 207132, et al. April 14, 2015 protected by a provisional injunctive writ.’ GAMCA and its member clinics” DOH-accreditation is only a privilege that is’ conditioned upon their faithful compliance of the existing laws and rules, including 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 IRR." = WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby Go sen GCC Approved Medical Centers Association, Inc. and Christian E. Cangco’s: (1) Most Urgent Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order/Writ of Preliminary Injunction/Status Quo Ante Order (with 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 Restraining Order/Writ of Preliminary Injunction/Status Quo ‘der dated March 11, 2015. We further injunction issued by its decision dated August 10, 2012. We ORDER the Court en bane’s Clerk of Court to notify the Department of Labor and Employment, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, and the Department of Foreign Affairs of this Resolution as they are the government agencies most concemed with the implementation of our OFW-related laws, rules and with relations with labor-receiving countries.” Leonardo-De Castro, J., on official business. Villarama, Jr., J., on official leave. (61) Very truly yours, ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL Clerk of Court Apart B. ANAMA Deputy Clerk of Court En t" "= Exmita v. Aldecoa-Delorino, G.R. No. 177130, June 7, 2011, 651 SCRA 141-142, citing St. James College of Paranaque v. Equitable PCI Bank, GR. No. 179441, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 328, ‘Accreditation is akin to a license which is defined in Section 2 (10), Chapter 1, Book 7 of the Administrative Codes as the whole or any part of any agency permit, certificate, passport, clearance, approval, registration, charter, membership, statutory exemption or other form of permission, or regulation of the exercise ofa right or privilege. Administrative Order No. 181, series of 2004, defines accreditation as a formal authorization issued by the DOH to an individual, partnership, corporation or association to ‘operate a medical facility for overseas workers and seafarers. INotice of Resolution -8- THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (x) 134 Amorsolo St, Legaspi Vilage 1209 Makati City ATTY. RONALD DE VEYRA (x) Legal Service, Department of Health Bldg. 12, San Lazaro Compound Rizal Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila THE SECRETARY (x) Department of Health Bldg. 1, San Lazaro Compound Rizal Avenue, Sta. Cruz, 1014 Manila “THE SECRETARY (x) Department of Labor and Employment DOLE Building, Muralla Wing Cor. Gen. Luna Street Intramuros, Manita *HON. ALBERT F. DEL ROSARIO (x) Secretary Department of Foreign Affairs Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City *HON, HANS LEO J. CACDAC (x) POEA Administrator POEA Building EDSA cor. Ortigas Avenue Mandaluyong City GR.Nos, 207132 & 207205, wid 41415 (URes61) 5715 GAR. Nos, 207132 & 207205 April 14, 2015 NAVARRO JUMAMIL ESCOLIN AND MARTINEZ (x) 20-C Burgundy Corporate Tower 252 Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue, 1200 Makati City ATTY, JOEL D. ESTRELLA (x) Counsel for intervenor Unit 7F, Westgate Tower Investment Drive, Madrigal Business Park ‘Ayala Alabang, 1780 Muntniupa City ATTY. BIENVENIDO B.M. AMORA, JR. (x) Counsel for intervenor AMCOW ‘AMORA DEL VALLE & ASSOCIATES Law Offices Unit 808, ALPAP II Building Trade Street comer Investment Drive Madrigal Business Park, Ayala Alabang Muntinlupa City 1799, Metro Mania ‘ATTYS. RODOLFO M. BAUSA AND FRANCIS JOSEPH H. AMPIL (x) Bausa Ampil Suarez Paredes and Associates ‘Counsel for Ptitioner-Intervenor Dr. Ruben C. Bartolome 37/F GT Tower Intemational 6815 Ayala Avenue, Makati City THE PRESIDING JUDGE (x) Regional Trial Court, Branch 108, Pasay City MARIEJOY P. LAGMAN (x) Officerin-Charge Regional Trial Court, Branch 108, Pasay City rod we we “Aitention