We make some assumptions about Philip and his ecclesiastical/life progress, based on the events and circumstances of his life that are related to us combined with a theology of ordination.
There is a definite passage of time occurring between the moments we encounter him in the text of Acts, at least three distinct moments. There is the need identified in the church for deacons, Act.6, when Philip is recognized and ordained. Then in Act.8, which comes following the death of Stephen (another one of the named deacons from earlier) Philip goes afield to Samaria where he preaches. Our theology of ordination and function of office should rather point us to the conclusion that Philip's gifts had seen him set further apart to the gospel ministry by this time.
The church in Jerusalem had seen most of its high-profile persons scattered (Act.8:1) with the exception of the apostles, clearly to preserve their lives but also with a view to seeing that the rising tide of persecution was providentially intended to force the church into a missionary mindset. Philip's successful evangelism in Samaria saw the church in Jerusalem (centered on the apostles) send forth other emissaries in the persons of Peter and John to evaluate and approve and declare that the one church was truly present even beyond the physical bounds of the Old Covenant (Samaria). Perhaps not yet "one o'er all the earth," but one though spread further according to the testimony of Christ in Act.1:8.
But shortly thereafter, Philip is sent (Act.8:26) traveling down the highway toward Gaza, where he encountered the Ethiopian eunuch, saw that man converted, and proceeded to baptize him. We ought to think that the previous events in Samaria, overseen, credited and approved by the apostles, helped Philip recognize his ministerial office now made him free to baptize (thus recognize) not only converts in Jerusalem and Samaria derived (even if by a little connection only) of Jewish stock; but to all who had begun spiritually by looking off to Jerusalem to seek the Living God.
That work suddenly concluded (by the Holy Spirit), Philip was "found" at Azotus (Act.8:40) and went along until Caesarea preaching and presumably fulfilling his office. Caesarea is where Philip is again noted (Act.21:8) where he evidently had planted the church and likely remained as its pastor for all the years of Paul's recorded ministry (that season most clearly coinciding with the intervening chapters that begin with Paul's conversion story). He is still identified as Philip the evangelist and one of the seven--note that distinctive and double identification.
I went to those lengths not for what it tells us in answer to the specific question of the OP, but so we can fully grasp (as we are able) the story of Philip, and also come to appreciate a little better the time scale of that story. From introduction to the last mention is around two decades (20yrs +/-). Philip was one who was believed to have "the Holy Spirit and wisdom" already at the start of that period (Act.6:3). Such gifts as he had were not even fully developed, and they increased along with his ministry. As a deacon, we may be doubtful he was appointed to preaching and baptizing; but he was preaching and baptizing after the scattering of the church (like seeds sown by a sower). Therefore, we conclude he was equipped for that labor.
That Peter and John, representing the church's core, went to approve Philip's first reported labors in Samaria--and saw a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit as heaven's approval and confirmation--shows the unity of the church. Philip baptizing a Jew in Jewish lands would not have been cause to summon the apostles for review. Philip's preaching and his baptisms of Samaritans were approved and credited by the one church, and by extension so was the evangelist's labors toward the Ethiopian after that, and subsequently in the Gentile-dominated port city (built by Herod the Great) of Caesarea, the official capital of Roman rule in the province.
Philip's ordination (which we ought to assume went beyond his initial appointment) would have made him a dutiful baptizer as we find him first performing in Act.8:12. He would have had that authority (in a Presbyterian's perspective) anywhere he was recognized in the church as one of its lawful ministers, first in his "home congregation," but not only there; including all over the territory the Jerusalem church held authoritative sway as they recognized themselves. So, he was a preacher and a baptizer all over Judea as soon as he was ordained or recognized as a gospel minister. He was the one to open up the existence of the church (in fact) in Samaria, evidenced by his baptisms there; and certified (de jure) by the church of Jerusalem by the attendance of the apostles.
My answer to your question is that we don't have record of the church's prior approval of Philip's further ministry beyond his deaconate; but we do have the record that he was doing the work of evangelist and church-planter and eventually pastor, leading to the conclusion that if things were done "in order" and with approvals all along the way: Philip's work demonstrates that he bore the prior ordination of one so authorized to speak and act in the way he did, even if we lack the extra report of his appointment event.
