Tiong Bi, Inc. v. Philippine Health Insurance Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Tiong Bi, Inc. (petitioner), owner of Bacolod Our Lady of Mercy Specialty Hospital, was charged with "Padding of Claims" and "Misrepresentation by Furnishing False and Incorrect Information" before the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth). These charges stemmed from similar allegations against two PhilHealth-accredited eye surgeons who utilized petitioner's facilities and staff. The fraudulent benefit claims included padding of prescriptions and recommending unnecessary medicines and supplies. Procedural History: PhilHealth's Arbitration Department dismissed the charges against the two doctors for lack of merit, which was affirmed by the PhilHealth Board. However, PhilHealth Board Resolution No. 2040, S. 2016, affirmed with modification a previous decision, finding petitioner guilty of a fraudulent offense for the second time. The penalty imposed was a six months and one day suspension of accreditation and a fine of P10,000.00 for each count of Padding of Claims, totaling P170,000.00, with an order for restitution and a stern warning against repetition. Petitioner appealed this resolution to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a petition for certiorari under Rule 43, also filing an Extremely Urgent Motion for Immediate Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). The Petition: Petitioner argued that the PhilHealth Resolution was erroneous, based on a wrong case, and should have been dismissed along with the charges against the doctors. Regarding the TRO, petitioner cited public interest, public health, and safety, claiming irreparable injury due to the threatened closure of its hospital, which would impede health measures and endanger patients. The CA denied the motion for TRO, finding no actual right to be protected nor possibility of irreparable injury. The CA subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's denial of the TRO and the PhilHealth Resolution itself, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the CA in refusing the injunctive writ and endangering public safety. The main case remained pending before the CA.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO). Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion for the issuance of a TRO.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated August 10, 2016, and January 12, 2017. The Court of Appeals was directed to resolve the main case with dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court held that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is an improper remedy to question the denial of a motion for injunctive relief, such as a TRO or preliminary injunction. Such denial is an interlocutory order, which is not appealable under Section 1(c), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The proper remedy for such an order is a petition for certiorari and/or prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The arguments raised by the petitioner were also found to be factual in nature, requiring an examination of evidence, which is not permissible in a Rule 45 petition, which is limited to questions of law. Therefore, the petition was dismissed outright for being an improper remedy. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion: Even if the petition were treated as one under Rule 65, it would still fail for lack of merit. The grant or denial of a TRO or injunctive writ rests on the sound discretion of the court, and this discretion will not be interfered with unless there is grave abuse of discretion, which implies a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic exercise of judgment. To be entitled to an injunctive writ, the petitioner must show a clear and unmistakable right, a direct threat to that right, a material and substantial invasion, and an urgent and paramount necessity to prevent serious and irreparable damage. In this case, the petitioner failed to discharge this burden. The CA correctly ruled that there was no urgent necessity to prevent serious damage. The petitioner's claim that the suspension of its PhilHealth accreditation would impede health services and endanger the public was found to be without merit, as the hospital would not be closed, and other health providers exist in the region. The potential damage, if any, was merely the temporary hindrance of members' benefits, which is quantifiable and not "grave and irreparable injury."
Main Doctrine
A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is an improper remedy to question the denial of a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction, as such denial is an interlocutory order. The proper remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Furthermore, the grant or denial of a TRO rests on the sound discretion of the court, and such discretion will not be interfered with unless there is grave abuse of discretion, which requires a showing of a clear and unmistakable right, an urgent necessity, and serious and irreparable damage, none of which were sufficiently demonstrated by the petitioner.