Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 76 views

    DOH Vs PPI

    Uploaded by

    NocQuisaot
    1) The DOH suspended the accreditation of PPI, a pharmaceutical supplier, for two years after finding that PPI had sold products unfit for human consumption. 2) PPI filed a civil case seeking to declare the DOH accreditation guidelines null and void. The RTC dismissed the case but the CA reversed, finding the DOH officials had acted beyond their authority. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the civil case should be dismissed, as it is essentially a suit against the state which cannot be filed without consent. The doctrine of state immunity also extends to complaints against state officials for acts done in the performance of their duties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    DOH Vs PPI

    Uploaded by

    NocQuisaot
    76 views2 pages
    1) The DOH suspended the accreditation of PPI, a pharmaceutical supplier, for two years after finding that PPI had sold products unfit for human consumption. 2) PPI filed a civil case seeking to declare the DOH accreditation guidelines null and void. The RTC dismissed the case but the CA reversed, finding the DOH officials had acted beyond their authority. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the civil case should be dismissed, as it is essentially a suit against the state which cannot be filed without consent. The doctrine of state immunity also extends to complaints against state officials for acts done in the performance of their duties.

    Original Description:

    C

    Original Title

    DOH vs PPI

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The DOH suspended the accreditation of PPI, a pharmaceutical supplier, for two years after finding that PPI had sold products unfit for human consumption. 2) PPI filed a civil case seeking to declare the DOH accreditation guidelines null and void. The RTC dismissed the case but the CA reversed, finding the DOH officials had acted beyond their authority. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the civil case should be dismissed, as it is essentially a suit against the state which cannot be filed without consent. The doctrine of state immunity also extends to complaints against state officials for acts done in the performance of their duties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    76 views2 pages

    DOH Vs PPI

    Uploaded by

    NocQuisaot
    1) The DOH suspended the accreditation of PPI, a pharmaceutical supplier, for two years after finding that PPI had sold products unfit for human consumption. 2) PPI filed a civil case seeking to declare the DOH accreditation guidelines null and void. The RTC dismissed the case but the CA reversed, finding the DOH officials had acted beyond their authority. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the civil case should be dismissed, as it is essentially a suit against the state which cannot be filed without consent. The doctrine of state immunity also extends to complaints against state officials for acts done in the performance of their duties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    CORTES, DONNA LHYN A.

    Department of Health (DOH) vs. Philippine Pharmawealth, Inc. (PPI)


    G.R. No. 182358, 20 February 2013

    FACTS:
    DOH Secretary Romualdez issued AO 27 to set the guidelines and
    procedures for accreditation of government suppliers of pharmaceutical
    products for sale and distribution to the public, valid for three years but subject
    to annual review. AO 10 and AO 66 were the amendments. Accreditation is
    valid for two years and may be recalled, suspended, and revoked after due
    deliberation, hearing, and notice by DOH Accreditation Committee.
    Memorandum No. 171-C provided the list and category of sanctions for
    violations by accredited suppliers. Undersecretary Galon held a meeting with
    the representatives of 24 accredited suppliers, including PPI. Copies of
    documents issued by BFAD for products sold unfit for human consumption
    were given and directed them to submit their explanation within ten days. PPI
    gave a belated letter informing that it has forwarded the report to their lawyers.
    DOH suspended PPI’s accreditation for two years.

    PPI filed Civil Case No. 68200 with RTC seeking to declare null and
    void the DOH AOs. The RTC dismissed the case, declaring it to be one against
    the State. PPI appealed to the CA where the latter reversed RTC’s ruling and
    found that herein petitioners were acting beyond the scope of their authority.

    ISSUES:
    1. WHETHER or NOT Civil Case No. 68200 be dismissed; and

    2. WHETHER or NOT the doctrine of state immunity extends to


    complaints filed against public officials.

    RULINGS:
    1. Civil Case No. 68200 should be dismissed because DOH, being an
    unincorporated government agency, can validly invoke state immunity.
    It is invested with an inherent power of sovereignty. Generally, the state
    may not be sued but the State may at times be sued if there is consent,
    either expressly or impliedly. Accordingly, a claim for damages against
    the agency cannot prosper, otherwise, the doctrine of sovereign
    immunity is violated.

    2. Yes, the doctrine of state immunity also extends to complaints filed


    against state officials for acts done in the performance of their duties.
    Secretaries Romualdez and Dayrit issued the assailed AOs
    implemented by Undersecretary Galon, authorized by law to supervise
    offices under DOH’s authority. The acts imputed against them were
    done in the performance of their official functions and capacities. The
    complaint against them should likewise be dismissed for being suit
    against the State which did not give its consent to be sued.

    You might also like