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.