REPUBLIC ACT No. 2382THE MEDICAL ACT OF 1959ARTICLE IObjectives
and ImplementationSection 1. Objectives. This Act provides for and
shall govern (a) the standardization and regulation of medical
education; (b) the examination for registration of physicians; and
(c) the supervision, control and regulation of the practice of
medicine in the Philippines.Section 2. Enforcement. For the purpose
of implementing the provisions of this Act, there are created the
following agencies: the Board of Medical Education under the
Department of Education, and the Board of Medical Examiners under
the Commissioner of Civil Service.ARTICLE IIThe Board of Medical
Education Its FunctionsSection 3. Composition of Board of Medical
Education. The Board of Medical Education shall be composed of the
Secretary of Education or his duly authorized representative, as
chairman, and the Secretary of Health or his duly authorized
representative, the Director of the Bureau of Private Schools or
his duly authorized representative, the chairman of the Board of
Medical Examiners or his duly authorized representative, a
representative of private practitioners, upon recommendation of an
acknowledged medical association and a representative chosen by the
Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities, as members.The
officials acting as chairman and members of the Board of Medical
Education shall hold office during their incumbency in their
respective positions.Section 4. Compensation and traveling
expenses. The chairman and members of the Board of Medical
Education shall not be entitled to any compensation except for
traveling expenses in connection with their official duties as
herein provided.For administrative purposes, the Board shall hold
office in the office of its chairman, who may designate a ranking
official in the Department of Education to serve as secretary of
the Board.Section 5. Functions. The functions of the Board of
Medical Education shall be:(a) To determine and prescribe minimum
requirements for admission into a recognized college of
medicine;(b) To determine and prescribe requirements for minimum
physical facilities of colleges of medicine, to wit: buildings,
including hospitals, equipment and supplies, apparatus,
instruments, appliances, laboratories, bed capacity for instruction
purposes, operating and delivery rooms, facilities for out-patient
services, and others, used for didactic and practical instructions
in accordance with modern trends;(c) To determine and prescribe the
minimum number and the minimum qualifications of teaching
personnel, including student-teacher ratio and curriculum;(d) To
determine and prescribe the number of students who should be
allowed to take up the preparatory course taking into account the
capacity of the different recognized colleges of medicine. (e) To
select, determine and approve hospitals or some departments of the
hospitals for training which comply with the minimum specific
physical facilities as provided in subparagraph (b) hereof: and(f)
To promulgate and prescribe and enforce necessary rules and
regulations for the proper implementation of the foregoing
functions.Section 6. Minimum required courses. Students seeking
admission to the medical course must have a bachelor of science or
bachelor of arts degree or their equivalent and must have taken in
four years the following subjects with their corresponding number
of units:Unit
English12
Latin3
Mathematics, including Accounting and Statistics9
Philosophy, including Psychology and Logic12
Zoology and Botany15
Physics8
Chemistry21
Library Science1
Humanities and Social Sciences12
Twelve units of Spanish shall be required pursuant to Republic
Act Numbered Seven hundred nine; but commencing with the academic
year nineteen hundred sixty to nineteen hundred sixty-one,
twenty-four units of Spanish shall be required pursuant to Republic
Act Numbered Eighteen hundred and eighty-one as cultural, social
and nationalistic studies.Provided, That the following students may
be permitted to complete the aforesaid preparatory medical course
in shorter periods as follows:(a) Students whose general average is
below eighty-five per cent but without any grade of failure or
condition may be allowed to pursue and finish the course in three
academic years and the intervening summer sessions; and(b) Students
whose general average is eighty-five per cent or over may be
permitted to finish the course in three academic years by allowing
them to take each semester the overload permitted to bright
students under existing regulations of the Bureau of Private
Schools.Provided, That upon failure to maintain the general average
of eighty-five per cent, students under (b) shall automatically
revert to the category of students under (a) and those under (a),
upon having any grade of failure or condition, shall automatically
revert to the category of students required to pursue the
preparatory course in four years mentioned above. The medical
course shall be at least five years, including not less than eleven
rotating internship in an approved hospital, and shall consist of
the following subjects:AnatomyPhysiologyBiochemistry and
NutritionPharmacologyMicrobiologyParasitologyMedicine and
TherapeuticsGenycologyOpthalmology, Otology, Rhinology and
LaryngologyPediatricsObstetricsSurgeryPreventive Medicine and
Public HealthLegal Medicine, including Medical Jurisprudence and
Ethics.Section 7. Admission requirements. The medical college may
admit any student to its first year class who has not been
convicted by any court of competent jurisdiction of any offense
involving moral turpitude, and who presents (a) a certificate
showing completion of a standard high school course, (b) a record
showing completion of a standard preparatory medical course as
herein provided, (c) a certificate of registration as medical
student, (d) a certificate of good moral character issued by two
former professors in the pre-medicine course, and (e) birth
certificate and marriage certificate, if any. Nothing in this Act
shall be construed to inhibit any college of medicine from
establishing, in addition to the preceding, other entrance
requirements that may be deemed admissible. For the purposes of
this Act, the term "College of Medicine" shall mean to include
faculty of medicine, institute of medicine, school of medicine or
other similar institution offering a complete medical course
leading to the degree of Doctor of Medicine or its equivalent.Every
college of medicine must keep a complete record of enrollment,
grades and turnover, and must publish each year a catalogue giving
the following information:1. Date of publication 2. Calendar for
the academic year 3. Faculty roll indicating whether on full time
part time basis 4. Requirements of admission 5. Grading system 6.
Requirements for promotion 7. Requirements for graduation 8.
Medical hours per academic year by departments 9. Schedule hours
per academic year by departments 10. Number of students enrolled in
each class.ARTICLE IIITHE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS; REGISTRATION
OF PHYSICIANS Section 8. Prerequisite to the practice of medicine.
No person shall engage in the practice of medicine in the
Philippines unless he is at least twenty-one years of age, has
satisfactorily passed the corresponding Board Examination, and is a
holder of a valid Certificate of Registration duly issued to him by
the Board of Medical Examiners. Section 9. Candidates for board
examination. Candidates for Board examinations shall have the
following qualifications:(1) He shall be a citizen of the
Philippines or a citizen of any foreign country who has submitted
competent and conclusive documentary evidence, confirmed by the
Department of Foreign Affairs, showing that his country's existing
laws permit citizens of the Philippines to practice medicine under
the same rules and regulations governing citizens thereof;(2) He
shall be of good moral character, showing for this purpose
certificate of civil status;(3) He shall be of sound mind;(4) He
shall not have been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction
of any offense involving moral turpitude; and(5) He shall be a
holder of the degree of Doctor of Medicine or its equivalent,
conferred by a college of medicine duly recognized by the
Department of Education.Section 10. Acts constituting practice of
medicine. A person shall be considered as engaged in the practice
of medicine (a) who shall, for compensation, fee, salary or reward
in any form, paid to him directly or through another, or even
without the same, physical examine any person, and diagnose, treat,
operate or prescribe any remedy for any human disease, injury,
deformity, physical, mental or physical condition or any ailment,
real or imaginary, regardless of the nature of the remedy or
treatment administered, prescribed or recommended; or (b) who
shall, by means of signs, cards, advertisements, written or printed
matter, or through the radio, television or any other means of
communication, either offer or undertake by any means or method to
diagnose, treat, operate or prescribe any remedy for any human
disease, injury, deformity, physical, mental or physical condition;
or (c) who shall use the title M.D. after his name. Section 11.
Exemptions. The preceding section shall not be construed to affect
(a) any medical student duly enrolled in an approved medical
college or school under training, serving without any professional
fee in any government or private hospital, provided that he renders
such service under the direct supervision and control of a
registered physician; (b) any legally registered dentist engaged
exclusively in the practice of dentistry; (c) any duly registered
masseur or physiotherapist, provided that he applies massage or
other physical means upon written order or prescription of a duly
registered physician, or provided that such application of massage
or physical means shall be limited to physical or muscular
development; (d) any duly registered optometrist who mechanically
fits or sells lenses, artificial eyes, limbs or other similar
appliances or who is engaged in the mechanical examination of eyes
for the purpose of constructing or adjusting eye glasses,
spectacles and lenses; (e) any person who renders any service
gratuitously in cases of emergency, or in places where the services
of a duly registered physician, nurse or midwife are not available;
(f) any person who administers or recommends any household remedy
as per classification of existing Pharmacy Laws; and (g) any
psychologist or mental hygienist in the performance of his duties,
provided such performance is done in conjunction with a duly
registered physician.Section 12. Limited practice without any
certificate of registration. Certificates of registration shall not
be required of the following persons: (a) Physicians and surgeons
from other countries called in consultation only and exclusively in
specific and definite cases, or those attached to international
bodies or organization assigned to perform certain definite work in
the Philippines provided they shall limit their practice to the
specific work assigned to them and provided further they shall
secure a previous authorization from the Board of Medical
Examiners.(b) Commissioned medical officers of the United States
armed forces stationed in the Philippines while rendering service
as such only for the members of the said armed forces and within
the limit of their own respective territorial jurisdiction.(c)
Foreign physicians employed as exchange professors in special
branches of medicine or surgery whose service may in the discretion
of the Board of Medical Education, be necessary.(d) Medical
students who have completed the first four years of medical course,
graduates of medicine and registered nurses who may be given
limited and special authorization by the Secretary of Health to
render medical services during epidemics or national emergencies
whenever the services of duly registered physicians are not
available. Such authorization shall automatically cease when the
epidemic or national emergency is declared terminated by the
Secretary of Health.Section 13. The Board of Medical Examiners, its
composition and duties. The Board of Medical Examiners shall be
composed of six members to be appointed by the President of the
Philippines from a confidential list of not more than twelve names
approved and submitted by the executive council of the Philippine
Medical Association, after due consultation with other medical
associations, during the months of April and October of each year.
The chairman of the Board shall be elected from among themselves by
the member at a meeting called for the purpose. The President of
the Philippines shall fill any vacancy that may occur during any
examination from the list of names submitted by the Philippine
Medical Association in accordance with the provisions of this
Act.No examiner shall handle the examinations in more than four
subjects or groups of subjects as hereinafter provided. The
distribution of subject to each member shall be agreed upon at a
meeting called by the chairman for the purpose. The examination
papers shall be under the custody of the Commissioner of Civil
Service or his duly authorized representative, and shall be
distributed to each member of the Board who shall correct, grade,
and sign, and submit them to the said Commissioner within one
hundred twenty days from the date of the termination of the
examinations. A final meeting of the Board for the deliberation and
approval of the grades shall be called by the Commissioner of Civil
Service immediately after receipt of the records from the members
of the Board of Medical Examiners. The secretary of the Board shall
submit to the President of the Philippines for approval the names
of the successful candidates as having been duly qualified for
licensure in alphabetical order, without stating the ratings
obtained by each.Section 14. Qualifications of examiners. No person
shall be appointed a member of the Board of Medical Examiners
unless he or she (1) is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines,
(2) is a duly registered physician in the Philippines, (3) has been
in the practice of medicine for at least ten years, (4) is of good
moral character and of recognized standing in the medical
profession, (5) is not a member of the faculty of any medical
school and has no pecuniary interest, directly or indirectly, in
any college of medicine or in any institution where any branch of
medicine is taught, at the time of his appointment: Provided, That
of the six members to be appointed, not more than two shall be
graduates of the same institution and not more than three shall be
government physicians.Section 15. Tenure of office and compensation
of members. The members of the Board of Medical Examiners shall
hold office for one year: Provided, That any member may be
reappointed for not more than one year. Each member shall receive
as compensation ten pesos for each candidate examined for
registration as physician, and five pesos for each candidate
examined in the preliminary or final physician examination.The
President of the Philippines, upon the recommendation of the
Commissioner of Civil Service , after due investigation, may remove
any member of the Board of Medical Examiners for neglect of duty,
incompetency, or unprofessional or dishonorable conduct. Section
16. Executive Officer and Secretary of the Board. The Secretary of
the Boards of Examiners appointed in accordance with section ten of
Act Numbered Four thousand seven, as amended, shall also be the
secretary of the Board of Medical Examiners, who shall keep all the
records, including examination papers, and the minutes of the
deliberations of the Board. He shall also keep a register of all
persons to whom certificates of registration has been granted; set
forth the name, sec, age, and place of birth of each, place of
business, post office address, the name of the medical college or
university from which he graduated or in which he had studied,
together with time spent in the study of the profession elsewhere,
the name of the country where the institution is located which had
granted to him the degree or certificate of attendance upon clinic
and all lectures in medicine and surgery, and all other degrees
granted to him from institutions of learning. He shall keep an
up-to-date registration book of all duly registered physicians in
the Philippines. He shall furnish copies of all examination
questions and ratings in each subject of the respective candidates
in the physicians examination, one month after the release of the
list of successful examinees, to the deans of the different
colleges of medicine exclusively for the information and guidance
of the faculties thereof. This report shall be considered as
restricted information. Any school which violates this rule shall
be deprived of such privilege. The secretary of the Board shall
likewise keep a record of all registered medical students. He shall
keep all the records and proceedings, and issue and receive all
papers in connection with any and all complaints presented to the
Board.Section 17. Rules and regulations. The Board of Medical
Examiners, with the approval of the Commissioner of Civil Service,
shall promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary for
the proper conduct of the examinations, correction of examination
papers, and registration of physicians. The Commissioner shall
supervise each Board examination and enforce the said rules and
regulations. These rules and regulations shall take effect fifteen
days after the date of their publication in the Official Gazette
and shall not be changed within sixty days immediately before any
examination. Such rules and regulations shall be printed and
distributed for the information and guidance of all concerned.
Section 18. Dates of examinations. The Board of Medical Examiners
shall give examinations for the registration of physicians, one in
May and one in November every year, in the City of Manila or any of
its suburbs after giving not less than ten days' notice to each
candidate who had filed his name and address with the secretary of
the Board.Section 19. Fees. The secretary of the Board, under the
supervision of the Commissioner of Civil Service, shall collect
from each candidate the following fees:For registration as medical
studentP 5.00
For complete physician examination75.00
For preliminary or final examination40.00
For registration as physician20.00
All fees paid as provided herein shall accrue to the funds of
the Board of Medical Examiners and be expended for the payment of
the compensation of the members thereof. No fees other than those
provided herein shall be paid to the Board.Section 20. Issuance of
Certificate of Registration, grounds for refusal of same. The
Commissioner of Civil Service and the secretary of the Board of
Medical Examiners shall sign jointly and issue certificates of
registration to those who have satisfactorily complied with the
requirements of the Board. They shall not issue a certificate of
registration to any candidate who has been convicted by a court of
competent jurisdiction of any criminal offense involving moral
turpitude, or has been found guilty of immoral or dishonorable
conduct after he due investigation by the Board of Medical
Examiners, or has been declared to be of unsound mind.Section 21.
Scope of examination. The examination for the registration of
physicians shall consist of the following subjects: (1) Anatomy and
Histology, (2) Physiology, (3) Biochemistry, (4) Microbiology and
Parasitology, (5) Pharcology and Therapeutics, (6) Pathology, (7)
Medicine, (8) Obstetrics and Gynecology, (9) Pediatrics and
Nutrition, (10) Surgery and Opthalmology, Otolaryngology and
Rhinology, (11) Preventive Medicine and Public Health, and (12)
Legal Medicine, Ethics and Medical Jurisprudence: Provided,
however, That the examination questions in each subject or group of
subject shall at least be ten in number: Provided, further, That
the examination questions in Medicine shall include at least three
from the following branches: Infectious diseases, Neurology,
Dermatology, Allergy, Endocrinology and Cardio-Vascular diseases:
Provided, finally, That the examination questions in Surgery shall
include at least four questions from the following: Opthalmology,
Otology, Rhinology, Laryngology, Orthopedic Surgery and
Anesthesiology.The questions shall be the same for all applicants.
All answers must be written either in English or Spanish. No name
of the examinee shall appear in the examination paper but the
examiners shall devise a system whereby each applicant can be
identified by number only.In order that a candidate may be deemed
to have passed his examination successfully he must have obtained a
general average of seventy-five per cent without a grade lower than
sixty-five per cent in Medicine, Pediatrics and Nutrition,
Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Preventive Medicine and Public
Health, and no grade lower than fifty per cent in the rest of the
subjects.The preliminary examinations shall comprise of the
following subjects:(1) Gross Anatomy and Histology (2)
Physiology(3) Biochemistry(4) Microbiology and ParasitologySection
22. Administrative investigations. In addition to the functions
provided for in the preceding sections, the Board of Medical
Examiners shall perform the following duties: (1) to administer
oath to physicians who qualified in the examination; (2) to study
the conditions affecting the practice of medicine in all parts of
the Philippines; (3) to exercise the powers conferred upon it by
this article with the view of maintaining the ethical and
professional standards of the medical profession; (4) to subpoena
or subpoena duces tecum witnesses for all purposes required in the
discharge of its duties; and (5) to promulgate, with the approval
of the Commissioner of Civil Service, such rules and regulations as
it may deem necessary for the performance of its duties in harmony
with the provisions of this Act and necessary for the proper
practice of medicine in the Philippines.Administrative
investigations may be conducted by not less than four members of
the Board of Medical Examiners; otherwise the proceedings shall be
considered void. The existing rules of evidence shall be observed
during all administrative investigations. The Board may disapprove
applications for examination or registration, reprimand erring
physicians, or suspend or revoke registration certificates, if the
respondents are found guilty after due investigations.Section 23.
Procedure and rules. Within five days after the filling of written
charges under oath, the respondent physician shall be furnished a
copy thereof, without requiring him or her to answer the same, and
the Board shall conduct the investigation within five days after
the receipt of such copy by the respondent. The investigation shall
be completed as soon as practicable.Section 24. Grounds for
reprimand, suspension or revocation of registration certificate.
Any of the following shall be sufficient ground for reprimanding a
physician, or for suspending or revoking a certificate of
registration as physician:(1) Conviction by a court of competent
jurisdiction of any criminal offense involving moral turpitude;(2)
Immoral or dishonorable conduct;(3) Insanity;(4) Fraud in the
acquisition of the certificate of registration;(5) Gross
negligence, ignorance or incompetence in the practice of his or her
profession resulting in an injury to or death of the patient;(6)
Addiction to alcoholic beverages or to any habit forming drug
rendering him or her incompetent to practice his or her profession,
or to any form of gambling;(7) False or extravagant or unethical
advertisements wherein other things than his name, profession,
limitation of practice, clinic hours, office and home address, are
mentioned.(8) Performance of or aiding in any criminal abortion;(9)
Knowingly issuing any false medical certificate;(10) Issuing any
statement or spreading any news or rumor which is derogatory to the
character and reputation of another physician without justifiable
motive;(11) Aiding or acting as a dummy of an unqualified or
unregistered person to practice medicine; (12) Violation of any
provision of the Code of Ethics as approved by the Philippine
Medical Association.Refusal of a physician to attend a patient in
danger of death is not a sufficient ground for revocation or
suspension of his registration certificate if there is a risk to
the physician's life.Section 25. Rights of respondents. The
respondent physician shall be entitled to be represented by counsel
or be heard by himself or herself, to have a speedy and public
hearing, to confront and to cross-examine witnesses against him or
her, and to all other rights guaranteed by the Constitution and
provided for in the Rules of Court.Section 26. Appeal from
judgment. The decision of the Board of Medical Examiners shall
automatically become final thirty days after the date of its
promulgation unless the respondent, during the same period, has
appealed to the Commissioner of Civil Service and later to the
Office of the President of the Philippines. If the final decision
is not satisfactory, the respondent may ask for a review of the
case, or may file in court a petition for certiorari.Section 27.
Reinstatement. After two years, the Board may order the
reinstatement of any physicians whose certificate of registration
has been revoked, if the respondent has acted in an exemplary
manner in the community wherein he resides and has not committed
any illegal, immoral or dishonorable act.ARTICLE IVPENAL AND OTHER
PROVISIONSSection 28. Penalties. Any person found guilty of
"illegal practice of medicine" shall be punished by a fine of not
less than one thousand pesos nor more than ten thousand pesos with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, or by imprisonment
of not less than one year nor more than five years, or by both such
fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.Section 29.
Injunctions. The Board of Medical Examiners may file an action to
enjoin any person illegally practicing medicine from the
performance of any act constituting practice of medicine if the
case so warrants until the necessary certificate therefore is
secured. Any such person who, after having been so enjoined,
continues in the illegal practice of medicine shall be punished for
contempt of court. The said injunction shall not relieve the person
practicing medicine without certificate of registration from
criminal prosecution and punishment as provided in the preceding
section.Section 30. Appropriation. To carry out the provisions of
this Act, there is hereby appropriated, out of any funds in the
National Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of twenty
thousand pesos.Section 31. Repealing clause. All Acts, executive
orders, administrative orders, rules and regulations, or parts
thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are repealed
or modified accordingly.Section 32. Effectivity. This Act shall
take effect upon its approval: Provided, That if it is approved
during the time when examinations for physicians are held, it shall
take effect immediately after the said examinations: Provided,
further, That section six of this Act shall take effect at the
beginning of the academic year nineteen hundred sixty to nineteen
hundred sixty-one, and the first paragraph of section seven shall
take effect four years thereafter.Approved: June 20, 1959PRC vs.
DeGuzman
Facts: The respondents are all graduates of the Fatima College
of Medicine, Valenzuela City, Metro Manila. They passed the
Physician Licensure Examination conducted in February 1993 by the
Board of Medicine (Board). Petitioner Professional Regulation
Commission (PRC) then released their names as successful examinees
in the medical licensure examination. Shortly thereafter, the Board
observed that the grades of the seventy-nine successful examinees
from Fatima College in the two most difficult subjects in the
medical licensure exam, Biochemistry (Bio-Chem) and Obstetrics and
Gynecology (OB-Gyne), were unusually and exceptionally high. Eleven
Fatima examinees scored 100% in Bio-Chem and ten got 100% in
OB-Gyne, another eleven got 99% in Bio-Chem, and twenty-one scored
99% in OB-Gyne.For its part, the NBI found that the questionable
passing rate of Fatima examinees in the [1993] Physician
Examination leads to the conclusion that the Fatima examinees
gained early access to the test questions.Issue: Was the act
pursuant to R.A. 2382 a valid exercise of police powerRuling: Yes,
it is true that this Court has upheld the constitutional right of
every citizen to select a profession or course of study subject to
a fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic
requirements. But like all rights and freedoms guaranteed by the
Charter, their exercise may be so regulated pursuant to the police
power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace, education,
order, safety, and general welfare of the people. Thus, persons who
desire to engage in the learned professions requiring scientific or
technical knowledge may be required to take an examination as a
prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers.
[G.R. No. 144681. June 21, 2004]PROFESSIONAL REGULATION
COMMISSION (PRC), CHAIRMAN HERMOGENES P. POBRE, ASSOCIATE
COMMISSIONER ARMANDO PASCUAL, BOARD OF MEDICINE, CHAIRMAN RODOLFO
P. DE GUZMAN, JOSE S. RAMIREZ, JUANITO B. BILLOTE, RUBEN R.
POLICARPIO, EDGARDO T. FERNANDO and RICARDO D. FULGENCIO II,
petitioners, vs. ARLENE V. DE GUZMAN, VIOLETA V. MENESES, CELERINA
S. NAVARRO, JOSE RAMONCITO P. NAVARRO, ARNEL V. HERRERA and
GERALDINE ELIZABETH M. PAGILAGAN, ELNORA R. RAQUENO, MARISSA A.
REGODON, LAURA M. SANTOS, KARANGALAN D. SERRANO, DANILO A.
VILLAVER, MARIA ROSARIO L. LEONOR, ALICIA S. LIZANO, MARITEL M.
ECHIVERRI, BERNADETTE T. MENDOZA, FERNANDO F. MANDAPAT, ALELI A.
GOLLAYAN, ELCIN C. ARRIOLA, HERMINIGILDA E. CONEJOS, SALLY B.
BUNAGAN, ROGELIO B. ANCHETA, OSCAR H. PADUA, JR., EVELYN D. GRAJO,
EVELYN S. ACOSTA, MARGARITA BELINDA L. VICENCIO, VALENTINO P.
ARBOLEDA, EVELYN O. RAMOS, ACHILLES J. PERALTA, CORAZON M. CRUZ,
LEUVINA P. CHICO, JOSEPH A. JAO, MA. LUISA S. GUTIERREZ, LYDIA C.
CHAN, OPHELIA C. HIDALGO, FERNANDO T. CRUZ, MELVIN M. USITA, RAFAEL
I. TOLENTINO, GRACE E. UY, CHERYL R. TRIGUERO, MICHAEL L. SERRANO,
FEDERICO L. CASTILLO, MELITA J. CAEDO, SAMUEL B. BANGOY, BERNARDITA
B. SY, GLORIA T. JULARBAL, FREDERICK D. FRANCISCO, CARLOS M.
BERNARDO, JR., HUBERT S. NAZARENO, CLARISSA B. BACLIG, DAYMINDA G.
BONTUYAN, BERNADETTE H. CABUHAT, NANCY J. CHAVEZ, MARIO D.
CUARESMA, ERNESTO L. CUE, EVELYN C. CUNDANGAN, RHONEIL R.
DEVERATURDA, DERILEEN D. DORADO, SAIBZUR N. EDDING, VIOLETA C.
FELIPE, HERMINIO V. FERNANDEZ, JR., MARIA VICTORIA M. LACSAMANA,
NORMA G. LAFAVILLA, RUBY B. LANTIN, MA. ELOISA Q. MALLARI, CLARISA
SJ. NICOLAS, PERCIVAL H. PANGILINAN, ARNULFO A. SALVADOR, ROBERT B.
SANCHEZ, MERLY D. STA. ANA and YOLANDA P. UNICA, respondents.D E C
I S I O NTINGA, J.:This petition for review under Rule 45 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure seeks to nullify the
Decision,[footnoteRef:1][1] dated May 16, 2000, of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283. The appellate court affirmed the
judgment[footnoteRef:2][2] dated December 19, 1994, of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 52, in Civil Case No. 93-66530.
The trial court allowed the respondents to take their physicians
oath and to register as duly licensed physicians. Equally
challenged is the Resolution[footnoteRef:3][3] promulgated on
August 25, 2000 of the Court of Appeals, denying petitioners Motion
for Reconsideration. [1: ] [2: ] [3: ]
The facts of this case are as follows:The respondents are all
graduates of the Fatima College of Medicine, Valenzuela City, Metro
Manila. They passed the Physician Licensure Examination conducted
in February 1993 by the Board of Medicine (Board). Petitioner
Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) then released their names
as successful examinees in the medical licensure
examination.Shortly thereafter, the Board observed that the grades
of the seventy-nine successful examinees from Fatima College in the
two most difficult subjects in the medical licensure exam,
Biochemistry (Bio-Chem) and Obstetrics and Gynecology (OB-Gyne),
were unusually and exceptionally high. Eleven Fatima examinees
scored 100% in Bio-Chem and ten got 100% in OB-Gyne, another eleven
got 99% in Bio-Chem, and twenty-one scored 99% in OB-Gyne. The
Board also observed that many of those who passed from Fatima got
marks of 95% or better in both subjects, and no one got a mark
lower than 90%. A comparison of the performances of the candidates
from other schools was made. The Board observed that strangely, the
unusually high ratings were true only for Fatima College examinees.
It was a record-breaking phenomenon in the history of the Physician
Licensure Examination.On June 7, 1993, the Board issued Resolution
No. 19, withholding the registration as physicians of all the
examinees from the Fatima College of Medicine.[footnoteRef:4][4]
The PRC asked the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to
investigate whether any anomaly or irregularity marred the February
1993 Physician Licensure Examination. [4: ]
Prior to the NBI investigation, the Board requested Fr.
Bienvenido F. Nebres, S.J., an expert mathematician and authority
in statistics, and later president of the Ateneo de Manila
University, to conduct a statistical analysis of the results in
Bio-Chem and Ob-Gyne of the said examination.On June 10, 1993, Fr.
Nebres submitted his report. He reported that a comparison of the
scores in Bio-Chem and Ob-Gyne, of the Fatima College examinees
with those of examinees from De La Salle University and Perpetual
Help College of Medicine showed that the scores of Fatima College
examinees were not only incredibly high but unusually clustered
close to each other. He concluded that there must be some unusual
reason creating the clustering of scores in the two subjects. It
must be a cause strong enough to eliminate the normal variations
that one should expect from the examinees [of Fatima College] in
terms of talent, effort, energy, etc.[footnoteRef:5][5] [5: ]
For its part, the NBI found that the questionable passing rate
of Fatima examinees in the [1993] Physician Examination leads to
the conclusion that the Fatima examinees gained early access to the
test questions.[footnoteRef:6][6] [6: ]
On July 5, 1993, respondents Arlene V. De Guzman, Violeta V.
Meneses, Celerina S. Navarro, Jose Ramoncito P. Navarro, Arnel V.
Herrera, and Geraldine Elizabeth M. Pagilagan (Arlene V. De Guzman
et al., for brevity) filed a special civil action for mandamus,
with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction docketed as Civil
Case No. 93-66530 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila,
Branch 52. Their petition was adopted by the other respondents as
intervenors.Meanwhile, the Board issued Resolution No. 26, dated
July 21, 1993, charging respondents with immorality, dishonest
conduct, fraud, and deceit in connection with the Bio-Chem and
Ob-Gyne examinations. It recommended that the test results of the
Fatima examinees be nullified. The case was docketed as Adm. Case
No. 1687 by the PRC. On July 28, 1993, the RTC issued an Order in
Civil Case No. 93-66530 granting the preliminary mandatory
injunction sought by the respondents. It ordered the petitioners to
administer the physicians oath to Arlene V. De Guzman et al., and
enter their names in the rolls of the PRC.The petitioners then
filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of
Appeals to set aside the mandatory injunctive writ, docketed as
CA-G.R. SP No. 31701. On October 21, 1993, the appellate court
decided CA-G.R. SP No. 31701, with the dispositive portion of the
Decision ordaining as follows:WHEREFORE, this petition is GRANTED.
Accordingly, the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issued by
the lower court against petitioners is hereby nullified and set
aside.SO ORDERED.[footnoteRef:7][7] [7: ]
Arlene V. de Guzman, et al., then elevated the foregoing
Decision to this Court in G.R. No. 112315. In our Resolution dated
May 23, 1994, we denied the petition for failure to show reversible
error on the part of the appellate court.Meanwhile, on November 22,
1993, during the pendency of the instant petition, the pre-trial
conference in Civil Case No. 93-66530 was held. Then, the parties,
agreed to reduce the testimonies of their respective witnesses to
sworn questions-and-answers. This was without prejudice to
cross-examination by the opposing counsel.On December 13, 1993,
petitioners counsel failed to appear at the trial in the mistaken
belief that the trial was set for December 15. The trial court then
ruled that petitioners waived their right to cross-examine the
witnesses.On January 27, 1994, counsel for petitioners filed a
Manifestation and Motion stating the reasons for her non-appearance
and praying that the cross-examination of the witnesses for the
opposing parties be reset. The trial court denied the motion for
lack of notice to adverse counsel. It also denied the Motion for
Reconsideration that followed on the ground that adverse counsel
was notified less than three (3) days prior to the
hearing.Meanwhile, to prevent the PRC and the Board from proceeding
with Adm. Case No. 1687, the respondents herein moved for the
issuance of a restraining order, which the lower court granted in
its Order dated April 4, 1994.The petitioners then filed with this
Court a petition for certiorari docketed as G.R. No. 115704, to
annul the Orders of the trial court dated November 13, 1993,
February 28, 1994, and April 4, 1994. We referred the petition to
the Court of Appeals where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
34506.On August 31, 1994, the appellate court decided CA-G.R. SP
No. 34506 as follows:WHEREFORE, the present petition for certiorari
with prayer for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction
is GRANTED and the Orders of December 13, 1993, February 7, 1994,
February 28, 1994, and April 4, 1994 of the RTC-Manila, Branch 52,
and all further proceedings taken by it in Special Civil Action No.
93-66530 are hereby DECLARED NULL and VOID. The said RTC-Manila is
ordered to allow petitioners counsel to cross-examine the
respondents witnesses, to allow petitioners to present their
evidence in due course of trial, and thereafter to decide the case
on the merits on the basis of the evidence of the parties. Costs
against respondents.IT IS SO ORDERED.[footnoteRef:8][8] [8: ]
The trial was then set and notices were sent to the parties.A
day before the first hearing, on September 22, 1994, the
petitioners filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion
praying for the partial reconsideration of the appellate courts
decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 34506, and for the outright dismissal of
Civil Case No. 93-66530. The petitioners asked for the suspension
of the proceedings.In its Order dated September 23, 1994, the trial
court granted the aforesaid motion, cancelled the scheduled hearing
dates, and reset the proceedings to October 21 and 28, 1994.
Meanwhile, on October 25, 1994, the Court of Appeals denied the
partial motion for reconsideration in CA-G.R. SP No. 34506. Thus,
petitioners filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review
docketed as G.R. No. 117817, entitled Professional Regulation
Commission, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.On November 11, 1994,
counsel for the petitioners failed to appear at the trial of Civil
Case No. 93-66530. Upon motion of the respondents herein, the trial
court ruled that herein petitioners waived their right to
cross-examine the herein respondents. Trial was reset to November
28, 1994.On November 25, 1994, petitioners counsel moved for the
inhibition of the trial court judge for alleged partiality. On
November 28, 1994, the day the Motion to Inhibit was to be heard,
petitioners failed to appear. Thus, the trial court denied the
Motion to Inhibit and declared Civil Case No. 93-66530 deemed
submitted for decision. On December 19, 1994, the trial court
handed down its judgment in Civil Case No. 93-66530, the fallo of
which reads:WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered ordering the
respondents to allow the petitioners and intervenors (except those
with asterisks and footnotes in pages 1 & 2 of this decision)
[sic],[footnoteRef:9][9] to take the physicians oath and to
register them as physicians. [9: ]
It should be made clear that this decision is without prejudice
to any administrative disciplinary action which may be taken
against any of the petitioners for such causes and in the manner
provided by law and consistent with the requirements of the
Constitution as any other professionals.No costs.SO
ORDERED.[footnoteRef:10][10] [10: ]
As a result of these developments, petitioners filed with this
Court a petition for review on certiorari docketed as G.R. No.
118437, entitled Professional Regulation Commission v. Hon. David
G. Nitafan, praying inter alia, that (1) G.R. No. 118437 be
consolidated with G.R. No. 117817; (2) the decision of the Court of
Appeals dated August 31, 1994 in CA-G.R. SP No. 34506 be nullified
for its failure to decree the dismissal of Civil Case No. 93-66530,
and in the alternative, to set aside the decision of the trial
court in Civil Case No. 93-66530, order the trial court judge to
inhibit himself, and Civil Case No. 93-66530 be re-raffled to
another branch.On December 26, 1994, the petitioners herein filed
their Notice of Appeal[footnoteRef:11][11] in Civil Case No.
93-66530, thereby elevating the case to the Court of Appeals, where
it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 37283. [11: ]
In our Resolution of June 7, 1995, G.R. No. 118437 was
consolidated with G.R. No. 117817.On July 9, 1998, we disposed of
G.R. Nos. 117817 and 118437 in this wise:WHEREFORE, the petition in
G.R. No. 117817 is DISMISSED for being moot. The petition in G.R.
No. 118437 is likewise DISMISSED on the ground that there is a
pending appeal before the Court of Appeals. Assistant Solicitor
General Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang is advised to be more circumspect
in her dealings with the courts as a repetition of the same or
similar acts will be dealt with accordingly.SO
ORDERED.[footnoteRef:12][12] [12: ]
While CA-G.R. SP No. 37283 was awaiting disposition by the
appellate court, Arnel V. Herrera, one of the original petitioners
in Civil Case No. 93-66530, joined by twenty-seven intervenors, to
wit: Fernando F. Mandapat, Ophelia C. Hidalgo, Bernadette T.
Mendoza, Ruby B. Lantin-Tan, Fernando T. Cruz, Marissa A. Regodon,
Ma. Eloisa Q. Mallari-Largoza, Cheryl R. Triguero, Joseph A. Jao,
Bernadette H. Cabuhat, Evelyn S. Acosta-Cabanes, Laura M. Santos,
Maritel M. Echiverri, Bernadette C. Escusa, Carlosito C. Domingo,
Alicia S. Lizano, Elnora R. Raqueno-Rabaino, Saibzur N. Edding,
Derileen D. Dorado-Edding, Robert B. Sanchez, Maria Rosario L.
Leonor-Lacandula, Geraldine Elizabeth M. Pagilagan-Palma, Margarita
Belinda L. Vicencio-Gamilla, Herminigilda E. Conejos, Leuvina P.
Chico-Paguio, Elcin C. Arriola-Ocampo, and Jose Ramoncito P.
Navarro, manifested that they were no longer interested in
proceeding with the case and moved for its dismissal. A similar
manifestation and motion was later filed by intervenors Mary Jean
I. Yeban-Merlan, Michael L. Serrano, Norma G. Lafavilla, Arnulfo A.
Salvador, Belinda C. Rabara, Yolanda P. Unica, Dayminda G.
Bontuyan, Clarissa B. Baclig, Ma. Luisa S. Gutierrez, Rhoneil R.
Deveraturda, Aleli A. Gollayan, Evelyn C. Cundangan, Frederick D.
Francisco, Violeta V. Meneses, Melita J. Caedo, Clarisa SJ.
Nicolas, Federico L. Castillo, Karangalan D. Serrano, Danilo A.
Villaver, Grace E. Uy, Lydia C. Chan, and Melvin M. Usita. The
Court of Appeals ruled that its decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283
would not apply to them.On May 16, 2000, the Court of Appeals
decided CA-G.R. SP No. 37283, with the following fallo, to
wit:WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision appealed
from, We hereby AFFIRM the same and DISMISS the instant appeal.No
pronouncement as to costs.SO ORDERED.[footnoteRef:13][13] [13:
]
In sustaining the trial courts decision, the appellate court
ratiocinated that the respondents complied with all the statutory
requirements for admission into the licensure examination for
physicians in February 1993. They all passed the said examination.
Having fulfilled the requirements of Republic Act No.
2382,[footnoteRef:14][14] they should be allowed to take their
oaths as physicians and be registered in the rolls of the PRC. [14:
]
Hence, this petition raising the following issues:IWHETHER OR
NOT RESPONDENTS HAVE A VALID CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MANDAMUS AGAINST
PETITIONERS IN THE LIGHT OF THE RESOLUTION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT
IN G.R. NO. 112315 AFFIRMING THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
DECLARING THAT IF EVER THERE IS SOME DOUBT AS TO THE MORAL FITNESS
OF EXAMINEES, THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSE TO PRACTICE MEDICINE IS NOT
AUTOMATICALLY GRANTED TO THE SUCCESSFUL EXAMINEES.IIWHETHER OR NOT
THE PETITION FOR MANDAMUS COULD PROCEED DESPITE THE PENDENCY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. 1687, WHICH WAS PRECISELY LODGED TO
DETERMINE THE MORAL FITNESS OF RESPONDENTS TO BECOME
DOCTORS.[footnoteRef:15][15] [15: ]
To our mind, the only issue is: Did the Court of Appeals commit
a reversible error of law in sustaining the judgment of the trial
court that respondents are entitled to a writ of mandamus?The
petitioners submit that a writ of mandamus will not lie in this
case. They point out that for a writ of mandamus to issue, the
applicant must have a well-defined, clear and certain legal right
to the thing demanded and it is the duty of the respondent to
perform the act required. Thus, mandamus may be availed of only
when the duty sought to be performed is a ministerial and not a
discretionary one. The petitioners argue that the appellate courts
decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283 upholding the decision of the
trial court in Civil Case No. 93-66530 overlooked its own
pronouncement in CA-G.R. SP No. 31701. The Court of Appeals held in
CA-G.R. SP No. 31701 that the issuance of a license to engage in
the practice of medicine becomes discretionary on the PRC if there
exists some doubt that the successful examinee has not fully met
the requirements of the law. The petitioners stress that this
Courts Resolution dated May 24, 1994 in G.R. No. 112315 held that
there was no showing that the Court of Appeals had committed any
reversible error in rendering the questioned judgment in CA-G.R. SP
No. 31701. The petitioners point out that our Resolution in G.R.
No. 112315 has long become final and executory.Respondents counter
that having passed the 1993 licensure examinations for physicians,
the petitioners have the obligation to administer to them the oath
as physicians and to issue their certificates of registration as
physicians pursuant to Section 20[footnoteRef:16][16] of Rep. Act
No. 2382. The Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283, found that
respondents complied with all the requirements of Rep. Act No.
2382. Furthermore, respondents were admitted by the Medical Board
to the licensure examinations and had passed the same. Hence,
pursuant to Section 20 of Rep. Act No. 2382, the petitioners had
the obligation to administer their oaths as physicians and register
them. [16: ]
Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of competent
jurisdiction, in the name of the state or the sovereign, directed
to some inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation
or person requiring the performance of a particular duty therein
specified, which duty results from the official station of the
party to whom the writ is directed, or from operation of
law.[footnoteRef:17][17] Section 3 of Rule 65[footnoteRef:18][18]
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure outlines two situations when a
writ of mandamus may issue, when any tribunal, corporation, board,
officer or person unlawfully (1) neglects the performance of an act
which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an
office, trust, or station; or (2) excludes another from the use and
enjoyment of a right or office to which the other is entitled. [17:
] [18: ]
We shall discuss the issues successively.1.On The Existence of a
Duty of the Board of Medicine To Issue Certificates of Registration
as Physicians under Rep. Act No. 2382.For mandamus to prosper,
there must be a showing that the officer, board, or official
concerned, has a clear legal duty, not involving
discretion.[footnoteRef:19][19] Moreover, there must be statutory
authority for the performance of the act,[footnoteRef:20][20] and
the performance of the duty has been refused.[footnoteRef:21][21]
Thus, it must be pertinently asked now: Did petitioners have the
duty to administer the Hippocratic Oath and register respondents as
physicians under the Medical Act of 1959? [19: ] [20: ] [21: ]
As found by the Court of Appeals, on which we agree on the basis
of the records:It bears emphasizing herein that
petitioner-appellees and intervenor-appellees have fully complied
with all the statutory requirements for admission into the
licensure examinations for physicians conducted and administered by
the respondent-appellants on February 12, 14, 20 and 21, 1993.
Stress, too, must be made of the fact that all of them successfully
passed the same examinations.[footnoteRef:22][22] [22: ]
The crucial query now is whether the Court of Appeals erred in
concluding that petitioners should allow the respondents to take
their oaths as physicians and register them, steps which would
enable respondents to practice the medical
profession[footnoteRef:23][23] pursuant to Section 20 of the
Medical Act of 1959? [23: ]
The appellate court relied on a single provision, Section 20 of
Rep. Act No. 2382, in concluding that the petitioners had the
ministerial obligation to administer the Hippocratic Oath to
respondents and register them as physicians. But it is a basic rule
in statutory construction that each part of a statute should be
construed in connection with every other part to produce a
harmonious whole, not confining construction to only one
section.[footnoteRef:24][24] The intent or meaning of the statute
should be ascertained from the statute taken as a whole, not from
an isolated part of the provision. Accordingly, Section 20 of Rep.
Act No. 2382, as amended should be read in conjunction with the
other provisions of the Act. Thus, to determine whether the
petitioners had the ministerial obligation to administer the
Hippocratic Oath to respondents and register them as physicians,
recourse must be had to the entirety of the Medical Act of 1959.
[24: ]
A careful reading of Section 20 of the Medical Act of 1959
discloses that the law uses the word shall with respect to the
issuance of certificates of registration. Thus, the petitioners
shall sign and issue certificates of registration to those who have
satisfactorily complied with the requirements of the Board. In
statutory construction the term shall is a word of command. It is
given imperative meaning. Thus, when an examinee satisfies the
requirements for the grant of his physicians license, the Board is
obliged to administer to him his oath and register him as a
physician, pursuant to Section 20 and par. (1) of Section
22[footnoteRef:25][25] of the Medical Act of 1959. [25: ]
However, the surrounding circumstances in this case call for
serious inquiry concerning the satisfactory compliance with the
Board requirements by the respondents. The unusually high scores in
the two most difficult subjects was phenomenal, according to Fr.
Nebres, the consultant of PRC on the matter, and raised grave
doubts about the integrity, if not validity, of the tests. These
doubts have to be appropriately resolved.Under the second paragraph
of Section 22, the Board is vested with the power to conduct
administrative investigations and disapprove applications for
examination or registration, pursuant to the objectives of Rep. Act
No. 2382 as outlined in Section 1[footnoteRef:26][26] thereof. In
this case, after the investigation, the Board filed before the PRC,
Adm. Case No. 1687 against the respondents to ascertain their moral
and mental fitness to practice medicine, as required by Section
9[footnoteRef:27][27] of Rep. Act No. 2382. In its Decision dated
July 1, 1997, the Board ruled: [26: ] [27: ]
WHEREFORE, the BOARD hereby CANCELS the respondents[]
examination papers in the Physician Licensure Examinations given in
February 1993 and further DEBARS them from taking any licensure
examination for a period of ONE (1) YEAR from the date of the
promulgation of this DECISION. They may, if they so desire, apply
for the scheduled examinations for physicians after the lapse of
the period imposed by the BOARD.SO ORDERED.[footnoteRef:28][28]
[28: ]
Until the moral and mental fitness of the respondents could be
ascertained, according to petitioners, the Board has discretion to
hold in abeyance the administration of the Hippocratic Oath and the
issuance of the certificates to them. The writ of mandamus does not
lie to compel performance of an act which is not duly
authorized.The respondents nevertheless argue that under Section
20, the Board shall not issue a certificate of registration only in
the following instances: (1) to any candidate who has been
convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction of any criminal
offense involving moral turpitude; (2) or has been found guilty of
immoral or dishonorable conduct after the investigation by the
Board; or (3) has been declared to be of unsound mind. They aver
that none of these circumstances are present in their
case.Petitioners reject respondents argument. We are informed that
in Board Resolution No. 26,[footnoteRef:29][29] dated July 21,
1993, the Board resolved to file charges against the examinees from
Fatima College of Medicine for immorality, dishonesty, fraud, and
deceit in the Obstetrics-Gynecology and Biochemistry examinations.
It likewise sought to cancel the examination results obtained by
the examinees from the Fatima College. [29: ]
Section 8[footnoteRef:30][30] of Rep. Act No. 2382 prescribes,
among others, that a person who aspires to practice medicine in the
Philippines, must have satisfactorily passed the corresponding
Board Examination. Section 22, in turn, provides that the oath may
only be administered to physicians who qualified in the
examinations. The operative word here is satisfactorily, defined as
sufficient to meet a condition or obligation or capable of
dispelling doubt or ignorance.[footnoteRef:31][31] Gleaned from
Board Resolution No. 26, the licensing authority apparently did not
find that the respondents satisfactorily passed the licensure
examinations. The Board instead sought to nullify the examination
results obtained by the respondents. [30: ] [31: ]
2.On the Right Of The Respondents To Be Registered As
PhysiciansThe function of mandamus is not to establish a right but
to enforce one that has been established by law. If no legal right
has been violated, there can be no application of a legal remedy,
and the writ of mandamus is a legal remedy for a legal
right.[footnoteRef:32][32] There must be a well-defined, clear and
certain legal right to the thing demanded.[footnoteRef:33][33] It
is long established rule that a license to practice medicine is a
privilege or franchise granted by the
government.[footnoteRef:34][34] [32: ] [33: ] [34: ]
It is true that this Court has upheld the constitutional
right[footnoteRef:35][35] of every citizen to select a profession
or course of study subject to a fair, reasonable, and equitable
admission and academic requirements.[footnoteRef:36][36] But like
all rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter, their exercise
may be so regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to
safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and
general welfare of the people.[footnoteRef:37][37] Thus, persons
who desire to engage in the learned professions requiring
scientific or technical knowledge may be required to take an
examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers.
This regulation takes particular pertinence in the field of
medicine, to protect the public from the potentially deadly effects
of incompetence and ignorance among those who would practice
medicine. In a previous case, it may be recalled, this Court has
ordered the Board of Medical Examiners to annul both its resolution
and certificate authorizing a Spanish subject, with the degree of
Licentiate in Medicine and Surgery from the University of
Barcelona, Spain, to practice medicine in the Philippines, without
first passing the examination required by the Philippine Medical
Act.[footnoteRef:38][38] In another case worth noting, we upheld
the power of the State to upgrade the selection of applicants into
medical schools through admission tests.[footnoteRef:39][39] [35: ]
[36: ] [37: ] [38: ] [39: ]
It must be stressed, nevertheless, that the power to regulate
the exercise of a profession or pursuit of an occupation cannot be
exercised by the State or its agents in an arbitrary, despotic, or
oppressive manner. A political body that regulates the exercise of
a particular privilege has the authority to both forbid and grant
such privilege in accordance with certain conditions. Such
conditions may not, however, require giving up ones constitutional
rights as a condition to acquiring the license.[footnoteRef:40][40]
Under the view that the legislature cannot validly bestow an
arbitrary power to grant or refuse a license on a public agency or
officer, courts will generally strike down license legislation that
vests in public officials discretion to grant or refuse a license
to carry on some ordinarily lawful business, profession, or
activity without prescribing definite rules and conditions for the
guidance of said officials in the exercise of their
power.[footnoteRef:41][41] [40: ] [41: ]
In the present case, the aforementioned guidelines are provided
for in Rep. Act No. 2382, as amended, which prescribes the
requirements for admission to the practice of medicine, the
qualifications of candidates for the board examinations, the scope
and conduct of the examinations, the grounds for denying the
issuance of a physicians license, or revoking a license that has
been issued. Verily, to be granted the privilege to practice
medicine, the applicant must show that he possesses all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications. Furthermore, it
must appear that he has fully complied with all the conditions and
requirements imposed by the law and the licensing authority. Should
doubt taint or mar the compliance as being less than satisfactory,
then the privilege will not issue. For said privilege is
distinguishable from a matter of right, which may be demanded if
denied. Thus, without a definite showing that the aforesaid
requirements and conditions have been satisfactorily met, the
courts may not grant the writ of mandamus to secure said privilege
without thwarting the legislative will.3.On the Ripeness of the
Petition for MandamusLastly, the petitioners herein contend that
the Court of Appeals should have dismissed the petition for
mandamus below for being premature. They argue that the
administrative remedies had not been exhausted. The records show
that this is not the first time that petitioners have sought the
dismissal of Civil Case No. 93-66530. This issue was raised in G.R.
No. 115704, which petition we referred to the Court of Appeals,
where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 34506. On motion for
reconsideration in CA-G.R. SP No. 34506, the appellate court denied
the motion to dismiss on the ground that the prayers for the
nullification of the order of the trial court and the dismissal of
Civil Case No. 93-66530 were inconsistent reliefs. In G.R. No.
118437, the petitioners sought to nullify the decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 34506 insofar as it did not order the
dismissal of Civil Case No. 93-66530. In our consolidated decision,
dated July 9, 1998, in G.R. Nos. 117817 & 118437, this Court
speaking through Justice Bellosillo opined that:Indeed, the issue
as to whether the Court of Appeals erred in not ordering the
dismissal of Civil Case No. 93-66530 sought to be resolved in the
instant petition has been rendered meaningless by an event taking
place prior to the filing of this petition and denial thereof
should follow as a logical consequence.[footnoteRef:42][42] There
is no longer any justiciable controversy so that any declaration
thereon would be of no practical use or value.[footnoteRef:43][43]
It should be recalled that in its decision of 19 December 1994 the
trial court granted the writ of mandamus prayed for by private
respondents, which decision was received by petitioners on 20
December 1994. Three (3) days after, or on 23 December 1994,
petitioners filed the instant petition. By then, the remedy
available to them was to appeal the decision to the Court of
Appeals, which they in fact did, by filing a notice of appeal on 26
December 1994.[footnoteRef:44][44] [42: ] [43: ] [44: ]
The petitioners have shown no cogent reason for us to reverse
the aforecited ruling. Nor will their reliance upon the doctrine of
the exhaustion of administrative remedies in the instant case
advance their cause any.Section 26[footnoteRef:45][45] of the
Medical Act of 1959 provides for the administrative and judicial
remedies that respondents herein can avail to question Resolution
No. 26 of the Board of Medicine, namely: (a) appeal the unfavorable
judgment to the PRC; (b) should the PRC ruling still be
unfavorable, to elevate the matter on appeal to the Office of the
President; and (c) should they still be unsatisfied, to ask for a
review of the case or to bring the case to court via a special
civil action of certiorari. Thus, as a rule, mandamus will not lie
when administrative remedies are still
available.[footnoteRef:46][46] However, the doctrine of exhaustion
of administrative remedies does not apply where, as in this case, a
pure question of law is raised.[footnoteRef:47][47] On this issue,
no reversible error may, thus, be laid at the door of the appellate
court in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283, when it refused to dismiss Civil
Case No. 93-66530. [45: ] [46: ] [47: ]
As we earlier pointed out, herein respondents Arnel V. Herrera,
Fernando F. Mandapat, Ophelia C. Hidalgo, Bernadette T. Mendoza,
Ruby B. Lantin-Tan, Fernando T. Cruz, Marissa A. Regodon, Ma.
Eloisa Q. Mallari-Largoza, Cheryl R. Triguero, Joseph A. Jao,
Bernadette H. Cabuhat, Evelyn S. Acosta-Cabanes, Laura M. Santos,
Maritel M. Echiverri, Bernadette C. Escusa, Carlosito C. Domingo,
Alicia S. Lizano, Elnora R. Raqueno-Rabaino, Saibzur N. Edding,
Derileen D. Dorado-Edding, Robert B. Sanchez, Maria Rosario
Leonor-Lacandula, Geraldine Elizabeth M. Pagilagan-Palma, Margarita
Belinda L. Vicencio-Gamilla, Herminigilda E. Conejos, Leuvina P.
Chico-Paguio, Elcin C. Arriola-Ocampo, and Jose Ramoncito P.
Navarro manifested to the Court of Appeals during the pendency of
CA-G.R. SP No. 37283, that they were no longer interested in
proceeding with the case and moved for its dismissal insofar as
they were concerned. A similar manifestation and motion were later
filed by intervenors Mary Jean I. Yeban-Merlan, Michael L. Serrano,
Norma G. Lafavilla, Arnulfo A. Salvador, Belinda C. Rabarra,
Yolanda P. Unica, Dayminda G. Bontuyan, Clarissa B. Baclig, Ma.
Luisa S. Gutierrez, Rhoneil R. Deveraturda, Aleli A. Gollayan,
Evelyn C. Cundangan, Frederick D. Francisco, Violeta V. Meneses,
Melita J. Caedo, Clarisa SJ. Nicolas, Federico L. Castillo,
Karangalan D. Serrano, Danilo A. Villaver, Grace E. Uy, Lydia C.
Chan, and Melvin M. Usita. Following these manifestations and
motions, the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283 decreed that
its ruling would not apply to them. Thus, inasmuch as the instant
case is a petition for review of the appellate courts ruling in
CA-G.R. SP No. 37283, a decision which is inapplicable to the
aforementioned respondents will similarly not apply to them.As to
Achilles J. Peralta, Evelyn O. Ramos, Sally B. Bunagan, Rogelio B.
Ancheta, Oscar H. Padua, Jr., Evelyn D. Grajo, Valentino P.
Arboleda, Carlos M. Bernardo, Jr., Mario D. Cuaresma, Violeta C.
Felipe, Percival H. Pangilinan, Corazon M. Cruz and Samuel B.
Bangoy, herein decision shall not apply pursuant to the Orders of
the trial court in Civil Case No. 93-66530, dropping their names
from the suit.Consequently, this Decision is binding only on the
remaining respondents, namely: Arlene V. de Guzman, Celerina S.
Navarro, Rafael I. Tolentino, Bernardita B. Sy, Gloria T. Jularbal,
Hubert S. Nazareno, Nancy J. Chavez, Ernesto L. Cue, Herminio V.
Fernandez, Jr., Maria Victoria M. Lacsamana and Merly D. Sta. Ana,
as well as the petitioners.WHEREFORE, the instant petition is
GRANTED. Accordingly, (1) the assailed decision dated May 16, 2000,
of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283, which affirmed
the judgment dated December 19, 1994, of the Regional Trial Court
of Manila, Branch 52, in Civil Case No. 93-66530, ordering
petitioners to administer the physicians oath to herein respondents
as well as the resolution dated August 25, 2000, of the appellate
court, denying the petitioners motion for reconsideration, are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE; and (2) the writ of mandamus, issued in
Civil Case No. 93-66530, and affirmed by the appellate court in
CA-G.R. SP No. 37283 is NULLIFIED AND SET ASIDE.SO ORDERED.Puno,
(Chairman), and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.Quisumbing, J., no
part.Austria-Martinez, J., no part - on leave.
Rissa M. Mira - Case Digest DECS vs. San DiegoG.R. No. 89572
December 21, 1989
Facts: Respondent San Diego has flunked the NMAT (National
Medical Admission Test) three times. When he applied to take again,
petitioner rejected his application based on the three-flunk-rule.
He then filed a petition before the RTC on the ground of due
process and equal protection and challenging the constitutionality
of the order. The petition was granted by the RTC therefore this
petition.
Issue:Whether or not the NMAT three-flunk-rule order is valid
and constitutional.
Ruling:Yes. It is the right and responsibility of the State to
insure that the medical profession is not infiltrated by
incompetents to whom patients may unwarily entrust their lives and
health. The method employed by the challenged regulation is not
irrelevant to the purpose of the law nor is it arbitrary or
oppressive. The right to quality education is not absolute. The
Constitution provides that every citizen has the right to choose a
profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable and
equitable admission and academic requirements. It is not enough to
simply invoke the right to quality education as a guarantee of the
Constitution but one must show that he is entitled to it because of
his preparation and promise. Petition was granted and the RTC
ruling was reversed.
G.R. No. 89572 December 21, 1989DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE
AND SPORTS (DECS) and DIRECTOR OF CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL
MEASUREMENT, petitioners, vs.ROBERTO REY C. SAN DIEGO and JUDGE
TERESITA DIZON-CAPULONG, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 172,
respondents.Ramon M. Guevara for private respondent.CRUZ, J.:The
issue before us is mediocrity. The question is whether a person who
has thrice failed the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) is
entitled to take it again.The petitioner contends he may not, under
its rule that-h) A student shall be allowed only three (3) chances
to take the NMAT. After three (3) successive failures, a student
shall not be allowed to take the NMAT for the fourth time.The
private respondent insists he can, on constitutional grounds.But
first the facts.The private respondent is a graduate of the
University of the East with a degree of Bachelor of Science in
Zoology. The petitioner claims that he took the NMAT three times
and flunked it as many times. 1 When he applied to take it again,
the petitioner rejected his application on the basis of the
aforesaid rule. He then went to the Regional Trial Court of
Valenzuela, Metro Manila, to compel his admission to the test. In
his original petition for mandamus, he first invoked his
constitutional rights to academic freedom and quality education. By
agreement of the parties, the private respondent was allowed to
take the NMAT scheduled on April 16, 1989, subject to the outcome
of his petition. 2 In an amended petition filed with leave of
court, he squarely challenged the constitutionality of MECS Order
No. 12, Series of 1972, containing the above-cited rule. The
additional grounds raised were due process and equal protection.
After hearing, the respondent judge rendered a decision on July 4,
1989, declaring the challenged order invalid and granting the
petition. Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong held that the petitioner
had been deprived of his right to pursue a medical education
through an arbitrary exercise of the police power. 3We cannot
sustain the respondent judge. Her decision must be reversed.In
Tablarin v. Gutierrez, 4 this Court upheld the constitutionality of
the NMAT as a measure intended to limit the admission to medical
schools only to those who have initially proved their competence
and preparation for a medical education. Justice Florentino P.
Feliciano declared for a unanimous Court:Perhaps the only issue
that needs some consideration is whether there is some reasonable
relation between the prescribing of passing the NMAT as a condition
for admission to medical school on the one hand, and the securing
of the health and safety of the general community, on the other
hand. This question is perhaps most usefully approached by
recalling that the regulation of the pratice of medicine in all its
branches has long been recognized as a reasonable method of
protecting the health and safety of the public. That the power to
regulate and control the practice of medicine includes the power to
regulate admission to the ranks of those authorized to practice
medicine, is also well recognized. Thus, legislation and
administrative regulations requiring those who wish to practice
medicine first to take and pass medical board examinations have
long ago been recognized as valid exercises of governmental power.
Similarly, the establishment of minimum medical educational
requirements-i.e., the completion of prescribed courses in a
recognized medical school-for admission to the medical profession,
has also been sustained as a legitimate exercise of the regulatory
authority of the state. What we have before us in the instant case
is closely related: the regulation of access to medical schools.
MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985, as noted earlier, articulates the
rationale of regulation of this type: the improvement of the
professional and technical quality of the graduates of medical
schools, by upgrading the quality of those admitted to the student
body of the medical schools. That upgrading is sought by
selectivity in the process of admission, selectivity consisting,
among other things, of limiting admission to those who exhibit in
the required degree the aptitude for medical studies and eventually
for medical practice. The need to maintain, and the difficulties of
maintaining, high standards in our professional schools in general,
and medical schools in particular, in the current state of our
social and economic development, are widely known. We believe that
the government is entitled to prescribe an admission test like the
NMAT as a means of achieving its stated objective of "upgrading the
selection of applicants into [our] medical schools" and of
"improv[ing] the quality of medical education in the country."
Given the widespread use today of such admission tests in, for
instance, medical schools in the United States of America (the
Medical College Admission Test [MCAT] and quite probably, in other
countries with far more developed educational resources than our
own, and taking into account the failure or inability of the
petitioners to even attempt to prove otherwise, we are entitled to
hold that the NMAT is reasonably related to the securing of the
ultimate end of legislation and regulation in this area. That end,
it is useful to recall, is the protection of the public from the
potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance in those
who would undertake to treat our bodies and minds for disease or
trauma.However, the respondent judge agreed with the petitioner
that the said case was not applicable. Her reason was that it
upheld only the requirement for the admission test and said nothing
about the so-called "three-flunk rule." We see no reason why the
rationale in the Tablarin case cannot apply to the case at bar. The
issue raised in both cases is the academic preparation of the
applicant. This may be gauged at least initially by the admission
test and, indeed with more reliability, by the three-flunk rule.
The latter cannot be regarded any less valid than the former in the
regulation of the medical profession.There is no need to redefine
here the police power of the State. Suffice it to repeat that the
power is validly exercised if (a) the interests of the public
generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class,
require the interference of the State, and (b) the means employed
are reasonably necessary to the attainment of the object sought to
be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. 5In
other words, the proper exercise of the police power requires the
concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful method. The subject of
the challenged regulation is certainly within the ambit of the
police power. It is the right and indeed the responsibility of the
State to insure that the medical profession is not infiltrated by
incompetents to whom patients may unwarily entrust their lives and
health.The method employed by the challenged regulation is not
irrelevant to the purpose of the law nor is it arbitrary or
oppressive. The three-flunk rule is intended to insulate the
medical schools and ultimately the medical profession from the
intrusion of those not qualified to be doctors.While every person
is entitled to aspire to be a doctor, he does not have a
constitutional right to be a doctor. This is true of any other
calling in which the public interest is involved; and the closer
the link, the longer the bridge to one's ambition. The State has
the responsibility to harness its human resources and to see to it
that they are not dissipated or, no less worse, not used at all.
These resources must be applied in a manner that will best promote
the common good while also giving the individual a sense of
satisfaction. A person cannot insist on being a physician if he
will be a menace to his patients. If one who wants to be a lawyer
may prove better as a plumber, he should be so advised and adviced.
Of course, he may not be forced to be a plumber, but on the other
hand he may not force his entry into the bar. By the same token, a
student who has demonstrated promise as a pianist cannot be shunted
aside to take a course in nursing, however appropriate this career
may be for others. The right to quality education invoked by the
private respondent is not absolute. The Constitution also provides
that "every citizen has the right to choose a profession or course
of study, subject to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and
academic requirements. 6The private respondent must yield to the
challenged rule and give way to those better prepared. Where even
those who have qualified may still not be accommodated in our
already crowded medical schools, there is all the more reason to
bar those who, like him, have been tested and found wanting.The
contention that the challenged rule violates the equal protection
clause is not well-taken. A law does not have to operate with equal
force on all persons or things to be conformable to Article III,
Section 1 of the Constitution.There can be no question that a
substantial distinction exists between medical students and other
students who are not subjected to the NMAT and the three-flunk
rule. The medical profession directly affects the very lives of the
people, unlike other careers which, for this reason, do not require
more vigilant regulation. The accountant, for example, while
belonging to an equally respectable profession, does not hold the
same delicate responsibility as that of the physician and so need
not be similarly treated. There would be unequal protection if some
applicants who have passed the tests are admitted and others who
have also qualified are denied entrance. In other words, what the
equal protection requires is equality among equals. The Court feels
that it is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality
education as a guarantee of the Constitution: one must show that he
is entitled to it because of his preparation and promise. The
private respondent has failed the NMAT five times. 7 While his
persistence is noteworthy, to say the least, it is certainly
misplaced, like a hopeless love.No depreciation is intended or made
against the private respondent. It is stressed that a person who
does not qualify in the NMAT is not an absolute incompetent unfit
for any work or occupation. The only inference is that he is a
probably better, not for the medical profession, but for another
calling that has not excited his interest. In the former, he may be
a bungler or at least lackluster; in the latter, he is more likely
to succeed and may even be outstanding. It is for the appropriate
calling that he is entitled to quality education for the full
harnessing of his potentials and the sharpening of his latent
talents toward what may even be a brilliant future. We cannot have
a society of square pegs in round holes, of dentists who should
never have left the farm and engineers who should have studied
banking and teachers who could be better as merchants.It is time
indeed that the State took decisive steps to regulate and enrich
our system of education by directing the student to the course for
which he is best suited as determined by initial tests and
evaluations. Otherwise, we may be "swamped with mediocrity," in the
words of Justice Holmes, not because we are lacking in intelligence
but because we are a nation of misfits. WHEREFORE, the petition is
GRANTED. The decision of the respondent court dated January 13,
1989, is REVERSED, with costs against the private respondent. It is
so ordered.Fernan, C.J., Narvasa Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr.,
Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes,
Grio-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.
6LEGAL MEDICINEGELLIE VALLERIE T. LUMANTAS