Roque files complaint vs. ex-PhilHealth President, Board Members
By CJ Juntereal
Published Aug 29, 2019 08:07 pm
By Czarina Ong Ki
Atty. Harry Roque, former Spokesperson for President Rodrigo Duterte, has filed a graft and usurpation complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman on Thursday afternoon against former Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) President Roy B. Ferrer and several other members due to the preferential treatment given to a hospital that was supposed to be suspended.
Harry Roque (ALBERT ALCAIN/PRESIDENTIAL PHOTO / MANILA BULLETIN)
Ferrer is facing the raps together with board members Ruperto Alezora, Celestina Ma. Jude Dela Serna, Eddie Dorotan, Joan Cristine Reina Liban-Lareza, Hildegardes Dineros, Roberto Salvador Jr., Anthony Leachon, Charade Mercado-Grande, Jonathan Mangaoang, and Lora Mangasar. The Perpetual Succour Hospital of Cebu, Inc. was likewise included in the complaint.
For the administrative raps, Roque wants them held liable for Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
On March 20, 2015, the Arbitration Department of PhilHealth issued a decision finding Perpetual Succour Hospital guilty of the offense of extending the period of confinement. The hospital was meted the penalty of three months suspension and a fine of P10,000.
The PhilHealth Board also required the hospital to restitute any payment made by PhilHealth for claims subject to the case. Perpetual Succour Hospital was strictly warned that a repetition of the same mistake shall be dealt with more severely.
The Court of Appeals (CA) even affirmed the decision on October 30, 2017.
However, the PhilHealth board seemed to have a change of heart on December 5, 2017 when it issued a resolution approving the policy on the imposition of penalty of maximum fine instead of suspension or revocation of accreditation.
Despite this resolution, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Perpetual Succour Hospital regarding its fine and suspension.
When Ferrer was appointed on June 29, 2018, he issued a corporate order and upheld the resolution regarding the penalty of maximum fine instead of suspension or revocation of accreditation.
The Committee on Appealed Administrative Cases (CAAC) of PhilHealth even held a meeting on December 12, 2018 regarding this. Respondents Grande, Mangaoang and Mangasar were among those who were present.
The respondents suggested that the CAAC reconsider the case of Perpetual Succour Hospital, and no longer impose the penalty of suspension. As a result, the CAAC resolved to recommend to PhilHealth the removal of the suspension penalty and the hospital was imposed the maximum penalty of P100,000 (P50,000 for each count).
On January 10, 2019, PhilHealth issued a new resolution partially granting the motion of Perpetual Succour Hospital. "The PhilHealth Board explained its deviation from the decision of the Honorable Court of Appeals by justifying that equity and humanitarian considerations dictate the removal of penalty of suspension on Perpetual Succour," the complaint stated.
Roque said it is undeniable that special preference was given to Perpetual Succour Hospital by the respondents, since they removed the penalty of suspension against it even though the CA already decided otherwise.
"Jurisprudence dictates that there is manifest partiality when there is a clear, notorious or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another," Roque said in his complaint.
And by issuing the resolution removing the suspension penalty against Perpetual Succour, Roque said that the respondents usurped the authority of the CA.
"The respondents...deliberately blocked and obstructed the execution of any order or decision rendered by the CA," he said.
Roque said in the prayer section of his complaint that the respondents who are sitting in the Board of Directors of PhilHealth need to be preventively suspended while the investigation is ongoing.
He also wants them to be criminally prosecuted for violations of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Article 241 of the Revised Penal Code or Usurpation of Judicial Functions.
Roque also asked that the Ombudsman hold the respondents liable for the administrative raps mentioned above, and then later dismiss them from service and that their retirement benefits be forfeited and they be perpetually disqualified from holding public office.
Harry Roque (ALBERT ALCAIN/PRESIDENTIAL PHOTO / MANILA BULLETIN)
Ferrer is facing the raps together with board members Ruperto Alezora, Celestina Ma. Jude Dela Serna, Eddie Dorotan, Joan Cristine Reina Liban-Lareza, Hildegardes Dineros, Roberto Salvador Jr., Anthony Leachon, Charade Mercado-Grande, Jonathan Mangaoang, and Lora Mangasar. The Perpetual Succour Hospital of Cebu, Inc. was likewise included in the complaint.
For the administrative raps, Roque wants them held liable for Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
On March 20, 2015, the Arbitration Department of PhilHealth issued a decision finding Perpetual Succour Hospital guilty of the offense of extending the period of confinement. The hospital was meted the penalty of three months suspension and a fine of P10,000.
The PhilHealth Board also required the hospital to restitute any payment made by PhilHealth for claims subject to the case. Perpetual Succour Hospital was strictly warned that a repetition of the same mistake shall be dealt with more severely.
The Court of Appeals (CA) even affirmed the decision on October 30, 2017.
However, the PhilHealth board seemed to have a change of heart on December 5, 2017 when it issued a resolution approving the policy on the imposition of penalty of maximum fine instead of suspension or revocation of accreditation.
Despite this resolution, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Perpetual Succour Hospital regarding its fine and suspension.
When Ferrer was appointed on June 29, 2018, he issued a corporate order and upheld the resolution regarding the penalty of maximum fine instead of suspension or revocation of accreditation.
The Committee on Appealed Administrative Cases (CAAC) of PhilHealth even held a meeting on December 12, 2018 regarding this. Respondents Grande, Mangaoang and Mangasar were among those who were present.
The respondents suggested that the CAAC reconsider the case of Perpetual Succour Hospital, and no longer impose the penalty of suspension. As a result, the CAAC resolved to recommend to PhilHealth the removal of the suspension penalty and the hospital was imposed the maximum penalty of P100,000 (P50,000 for each count).
On January 10, 2019, PhilHealth issued a new resolution partially granting the motion of Perpetual Succour Hospital. "The PhilHealth Board explained its deviation from the decision of the Honorable Court of Appeals by justifying that equity and humanitarian considerations dictate the removal of penalty of suspension on Perpetual Succour," the complaint stated.
Roque said it is undeniable that special preference was given to Perpetual Succour Hospital by the respondents, since they removed the penalty of suspension against it even though the CA already decided otherwise.
"Jurisprudence dictates that there is manifest partiality when there is a clear, notorious or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or person rather than another," Roque said in his complaint.
And by issuing the resolution removing the suspension penalty against Perpetual Succour, Roque said that the respondents usurped the authority of the CA.
"The respondents...deliberately blocked and obstructed the execution of any order or decision rendered by the CA," he said.
Roque said in the prayer section of his complaint that the respondents who are sitting in the Board of Directors of PhilHealth need to be preventively suspended while the investigation is ongoing.
He also wants them to be criminally prosecuted for violations of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Article 241 of the Revised Penal Code or Usurpation of Judicial Functions.
Roque also asked that the Ombudsman hold the respondents liable for the administrative raps mentioned above, and then later dismiss them from service and that their retirement benefits be forfeited and they be perpetually disqualified from holding public office.