Republic of the Philippines

Philippine Competition Commission

COMPETITION ENFORCEMENT OFFICE
25/F Tower 1, Vertis North Corporate Center
North Avenue, Quezon City

IN RE: SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

ET AD TESTIFICANDUM,

SUB No. CEO-114-2021

CEO 19-0047-FAI
MR. ARTEMIO B. SANCHEZ
President
St. Peter Paul Medical Clinic
1182 Grey St., Ermita, Manila
Entity Under Full
Administrative Investigation
x----------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[RE: RESOLUTION DATED 27 MAY 2021]

Movants St. Peter Paul Medical Clinic and Mr. Artemio B. Sanchez
(“Movant Sanchez”), President of Peter Paul Medical Clinic, (collectively,
the “Movants”) by counsel, unto this Honorable Office, respectfully states:

1. On 27 May 2021, this Honorable Office issued a Resolution

Denying the Movants’ Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Et Ad
Testificandum, the Dispositive portion of which stated:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Enforcement Office

resolves:

1. To DENY the Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Et

Ad Testificandum IN TOTO;
2. To MOVE the deadline for submission of documents for
the Subpoena to 8 June 2021;
3. To MOVE the scheduled subpoena hearing for to 15 June
2021 at 10:00 am.”

2. Herein Movant received a copy of such Re

3. Acceding that the Philippine Competition Commission (PCC) is
empowered by Section 12(f) of RA 10667 or the”Philippine Competition
Act” (PCA) which states that:

“Section 12. Powers and Functions. — The Commission shall

have original and primary jurisdiction over the enforcement and
implementation of the provisions of this Act, and its
 implementing rules and regulations. The Commission shall
exercise the following powers and functions:

xxx

(f) Issue subpoena duces tecum and subpoena ad

testificandum to require the production of books, records, or
other documents or data which relate to any matter relevant to
the investigation and personal appearance before the
Commission, summon witnesses, administer oaths, and issue
interim orders such as show cause orders and cease and desist
orders after due notice and hearing in accordance with the rules
and regulations implementing this Act;

x x x”

4. The Resolution likewise cited Sec. 13.4 Rule XIII, Art. II of the
PCC rules and Regulations for the Motion for Reconsiderations of Subpoena
issued by the PCC, stating”

“Section 13.4. Motion to reconsider subpoena. — A subpoena may be

reconsidered upon motion on the ground that the subject of the subpoena
duces tecum is not related to a matter relevant to the Investigation or
proceeding, or when the person subject of the subpoena ad testificandum
cannot comply therewith on the ground that doing so would violate a law,
issuance, or valid order.”

5. While gleaming from the abovementioned provision of the

PCA that the PCC is empowered to issue Subpoena in the course of their
investigation, it can be gainsaid that such power of the PCC is not absolute.
Settled it the rule that the Constitution is deemed written into every law and
government issuance. Hence, in the application of laws and governmental
regulations, their provisions should not be interpreted in a manner that will
violate the fundamental law of the land.

6. It is noteworthy to say that the Republic Act 386, or otherwise

known as the Civil Code of the Philippines, particularly Article 8 of the
same, states that:
Article 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or
the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the
Philippines

7. Thus for the purposes of this motion the following

Jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court are to be given weight as part
of the law of the land:

8. The Evangelista v. Jarencio Ruling cited by the 27 May 2021

Resolution, the Supreme Court ruled that in Evangelista v. Jarencio1, the
Supreme Court ruled that an administrative subpoena meets the requirements
for enforcement if (i) the inquiry is within the authority of the agency; (ii)
the demand is not too indefinite, and (iii) the information is reasonably
relevant.1 The Supreme Court further ruled that: “The seeming proviso in
Section 580 of the Revised Administrative Code that the right to summon
witnesses and the authority to require the production of documents under a
subpoena duces tecum or otherwise shall be "subject in all respects to the
same restrictions and qualifications as apply in judicial proceedings of a
similar character" x x x To an extent, therefore, the "restrictions and
qualifications" referred to in Section 580 of the Revised Administrative
Code could mean the restraints against infringement of constitutional rights
or when the subpoena is unreasonable or oppressive and when the relevancy
of the books, documents or things does not appear.

9. Based on the abovementioned ruling of the Supreme Court it is

settled that Subpoenas issued by Administrative Agencies are not without
Restrictions and Qualifications, the same are also bound in the ruling of the
Supreme Court in the case of H.C. Liebenow vs. The Philippine Vegetable
Oil Company, supra; and Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum dated January 11,
2010 of Acting Director Aleu A. Amante, PIABC, Office of the Ombudsman, 2
that “before a subpoena duces tecum may issue, the court must first be
satisfied that the following requisites are present: (1) the books, documents
or other things requested must appear prima facie relevant to the issue
subject of the controversy (test of relevancy); and (2) such books must be
reasonably described by the parties to be readily identified (test of
definiteness)”

10. A subpoena duces tecum once issued may be quashed, as held

in the case of Universal Rubber Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals 3, upon
motion “if the issuance thereof is unreasonable and oppressive or the
relevancy of the books, documents or things does not appear, or if the
persons in whose behalf the subpoena is issued fails to advance the
reasonable cost of production thereof.”

11. It is respectfully submits that the subpoena is unreasonable

and oppressive. It requires the production and submission of both
electronic and hard copies of voluminous documents and information
which are physically and legally impossible to prepare within the given
period, especially considering the RISKS and WORK LIMITATIONS
brought about by the ongoing Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ),
Modified Enhanced Community Quarantine (MECQ) and General
Community Quarantine (GCQ).

1
G.R. No. L-29274, 27 November 1975
2
G.R. No. L-13463 9 November 1918
3
G.R. No. L-30266
 12. The unreasonable and oppressive nature of the subpoena readily
comes to light if we are to consider that EUFAI needs to prepare, tabulate,
vet, print and/or photocopy a minimum of 8,000 pages, more or less.
Thereafter, these will have to be individually scanned and stored
electronically as digital files.

Moreover, requiring the production of documents that are as old as 10 years

(from 2010) and/or 5 years (from 2015) is mind- boggling, extensive and
unreasonable, such as:

 Total number of Filipino applicants bound for GCC countries which

underwent PEME with St. Peter Paul Medical Clinic from January
2015-February 2021;
 Total number of Filipino applicants bound for GCC countries which
were administered a vaccine by St. Peter Paul Medical Clinic as
required by the Gulf Health Council (GHC) or GCC from January
2015-Februry 2021;
 Master Logbook of St. Peter Paul Medical Clinic from January 2015-
February 2021 or any document of similar nature containing the
names of the applicants bound for GCC countries, their recruitment
agencies and the tests that will be conducted to them;
 Amount which St. Peter Paul Medical Clinic charges for the conduct
of PEME and administration of vaccine per Filipino applicant from
January 2010-February 2021 on a per month basis (e.g. January 2010:
Price for PEME in January 2010 and Price for administration of
vaccine in January 2010);
 Copies of emails, text messages or communications of GCC
Accredited Medical Centers (GAMCs) with each other under the GCC
Approved Medical Centers Association, Inc. (GAMCA) from January
2010-February 2021; other under the GCC Approved Medical Centers
Association, Inc. (GAMCA) from January 2010-February 2021;
 • All circulars, communications and directives of GHC or GCC to the
GAMCs (including St. Peter Paul Medical Clinic) in relation to the
conduct of PEME and administration of vaccine for Filipino
applicants bound for GCC Countries.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the subject denial of the

Motion to Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum be Reconsidered, vacated and
set aside.

Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are likewise prayed
for.

Pasig City, for Quezon City; May __, 2021

 THE LAW FIRM OF
GARAY USITA CONCHA & JIMENEZ
12-B Marco Polo
Sapphire Road, Ortigas Center
Pasig City 1600

BY:

PETER JOEY B. USITA

IBP No. 156530/2-8-2021/QC
PTR NO. 9918375/2-8-2021/Mla
Attorney’s Roll No. 38572
MCLE Exemption No. VI-000924/Oct. 10, 2018
Mobile No. 09175303879
Email: atty.usita@gmail.com