GR 78254; (April, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 78254; April 25, 1991
JOINT MINISTRY OF HEALTH-MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE FOR MEDICAL CLINICS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ERMITA MEDICAL CENTER, respondents.
FACTS
The Joint Ministry of Health-Ministry of Labor and Employment Accreditation Committee (Committee) was created to regulate medical clinics conducting examinations for overseas workers. It issued Rules and Regulations on June 1, 1983, classifying clinics into “regularly accredited” and “in-house” clinics. Respondent Ermita Medical Center was accredited as an in-house clinic for a specific company, Builders and Heavy Equipment Services Corporation (BHESCO). The Committee revoked this accreditation twice, first in 1983 and again in 1984, after finding the Center had conducted examinations for other companies, violating the Rules.
The Center filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, questioning the Committee’s authority. The appellate court upheld the validity of the Rules as a proper exercise of police power and delegated authority. However, it nullified the revocation, ruling the Committee’s power under its own Rules was limited to recommending sanctions, not imposing them directly. The Committee, through the Solicitor General, elevated the case, arguing it had inherent administrative power to impose sanctions like revocation.
ISSUE
Whether the Committee validly revoked the accreditation of Ermita Medical Center based on its unpublished Rules and Regulations.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and set aside the challenged decision, ruling that the Committee’s Rules and Regulations never acquired legal force. During the proceedings, the private respondent presented a certification from the National Printing Office stating that the questioned Rules issued on June 1, 1983, had not been published in the Official Gazette. The Solicitor General did not refute this evidence.
The Court held that while the Rules might have been a valid exercise of delegated authority, their publication was a prerequisite for their effectivity. Citing the doctrine in Tañada v. Tuvera, the Court emphasized that administrative rules and regulations must be published to be binding. Since the Rules had not been published when the Committee revoked the Center’s accreditation in 1984, they were not yet operative law. Consequently, the revocation had no statutory basis. The Court could not interpret or apply rules that were not in force. The mootness argument, based on new rules issued in 1990, was irrelevant as the case must be decided based on the law in effect when the cause of action arose.