GR 229106; (February, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 229106 . February 20, 2019
TIONG BI, INC. (Owner of Bacolod Our Lady of Mercy Specialty Hospital), Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Tiong Bi, Inc., owner of Bacolod Our Lady of Mercy Specialty Hospital, was found guilty by the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) of “Padding of Claims” and “Misrepresentation” for fraudulent benefit claims, including padding prescriptions and recommending unnecessary medicines. The PhilHealth Board affirmed a modified penalty of a six-month-and-one-day suspension of accreditation, a fine, and restitution. Notably, similar charges against two involved physicians were earlier dismissed. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the PhilHealth Resolution and filed an Extremely Urgent Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). It argued that implementing the suspension would cause irreparable injury by threatening the hospital’s operations, endangering public health in Negros, and creating a regional health crisis.
The CA denied the motion for TRO, finding no actual existing right to protect and no possibility of irreparable injury. The CA also denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. The main petition on the merits remained pending before the CA. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, contending the CA erred in not issuing an injunctive writ and endangering public safety.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petition and reverse the CA’s denial of the TRO.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court first held that the petition was an improper remedy. An order denying a TRO is interlocutory and not appealable; the proper recourse is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not a petition for review under Rule 45. Moreover, petitioner’s arguments required a factual review of the PhilHealth Resolution’s merits, which involves questions of fact inappropriate for a Rule 45 petition. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and ruling on these points would preempt the CA’s pending resolution of the main case.
Substantively, even if treated as a Rule 65 petition, it lacked merit. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the CA. For a TRO or injunction to issue, a clear legal right must be shown, and the injury must be irreparable. Here, the penalty imposed was suspension of PhilHealth accreditation and a fine, not the hospital’s closure. The hospital could continue operations and serve non-PhilHealth patients. Any injury from the suspension—such as temporary loss of PhilHealth benefits for members—was quantifiable and compensable, not irreparable. Irreparable injury refers to damage that cannot be measured by any accurate standard, which was absent. The CA correctly avoided an interlocutory relief that would effectively decide the main case prematurely.