REPUBLIC ACT No.

2382

THE MEDICAL ACT OF 1959

ARTICLE I
Objectives and Implementation

Section 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 II
The Board of Medical Education Its Functions

Section 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
English 12
Latin 3
Mathematics, including Accounting
9
and Statistics
Philosophy, including Psychology and
12
Logic
Zoology and Botany 15
Physics 8
Chemistry 21
Library Science 1
Humanities and Social Sciences 12

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:

Anatomy

Physiology

Biochemistry and Nutrition

Pharmacology

Microbiology

Parasitology

Medicine and Therapeutics

Genycology

Opthalmology, Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology

Pediatrics

Obstetrics

Surgery

Preventive Medicine and Public Health

Legal 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 III
THE 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 student P 5.00

For complete physician examination 75.00
For preliminary or final examination 40.00
For registration as physician 20.00

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 Parasitology

Section 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 IV
PENAL AND OTHER PROVISIONS

Section 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, 1959

 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 78164 July 31, 1987

TERESITA TABLARIN, MA, LUZ CIRIACO, MA NIMFA B. ROVIRA, EVANGELINA S.

LABAO, in their behalf and in behalf of applicants for admission into the Medical
Colleges during the school year 1987-88 and future years who have not taken or
successfully hurdled tile National Medical Admission Test (NMAT).petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE JUDGE ANGELINA S. GUTIERREZ, Presiding Judge of Branch XXXVII
of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region with seat at Manila,
THE HONORABLE SECRETARY LOURDES QUISUMBING, in her capacity as Chairman of
the BOARD OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, and THE CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL
MEASUREMENT (CEM), respondents.

FELICIANO, J.:

The petitioners sought admission into colleges or schools of medicine for the school year 1987-
1988. However, the petitioners either did not take or did not successfully take the National
Medical Admission Test (NMAT) required by the Board of Medical Education, one of the public
respondents, and administered by the private respondent, the Center for Educational
Measurement (CEM).

On 5 March 1987, the petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial
Region, a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Prohibition with a prayer for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The petitioners sought to enjoin the Secretary of
Education, Culture and Sports, the Board of Medical Education and the Center for Educational
Measurement from enforcing Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act No. 2382, as amended, and
MECS Order No. 52, series of 1985, dated 23 August 1985 and from requiring the taking and
passing of the NMAT as a condition for securing certificates of eligibility for admission, from
proceeding with accepting applications for taking the NMAT and from administering the NMAT
as scheduled on 26 April 1987 and in the future. After hearing on the petition for issuance of
preliminary injunction, the trial court denied said petition on 20 April 1987. The NMAT was
conducted and administered as previously scheduled.

Petitioners accordingly filed this Special Civil Action for certiorari with this Court to set aside the
Order of the respondent judge denying the petition for issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction.

Republic Act 2382, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 4224 and 5946, known as the "Medical
Act of 1959" defines its basic objectives in the following manner:

Section 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. (Underscoring supplied)
The statute, among other things, created a Board of Medical Education which is composed of
(a) the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports or his duly authorized representative, as
Chairman; (b) the Secretary of Health or his duly authorized representative; (c) the Director of
Higher Education or his duly authorized representative; (d) the Chairman of the Medical Board
or his duly authorized representative; (e) a representative of the Philippine Medical Association;
(f) the Dean of the College of Medicine, University of the Philippines; (g) a representative of the
Council of Deans of Philippine Medical Schools; and (h) a representative of the Association of
Philippine Medical Colleges, as members. The functions of the Board of Medical Education
specified in Section 5 of the statute include the following:

(a) To determine and prescribe equirements 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 outpatient services, and others, used for didactic and
practical instruction in accordance with modern trends;

(c) To determine and prescribe the minimum number and minimum qualifications of
teaching personnel, including student-teachers ratio;

(d) To determine and prescribe the minimum required curriculum leading to the degree
of Doctor of Medicine;

(e) To authorize the implementation of experimental medical curriculum in a medical

school that has exceptional faculty and instrumental facilities. Such an experimental
curriculum may prescribe admission and graduation requirements other than those
prescribed in this Act; Provided, That only exceptional students shall be enrolled in the
experimental curriculum;

(f) To accept applications for certification for admission to a medical school and keep a
register of those issued said certificate; and to collect from said applicants the amount of
twenty-five pesos each which shall accrue to the operating fund of the Board of Medical
Education;

(g) 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

(h) To promulgate and prescribe and enforce the necessary rules and regulations for the
proper implementation of the foregoing functions. (Emphasis supplied)

Section 7 prescribes certain minimum requirements for applicants to medical schools:

Admission requirements. — The medical college may admit any student who has not
been convicted by any court of competent jurisdiction of any offense involving moral
turpitude and who presents (a) a record of completion of a bachelor's degree in science
or arts; (b) a certificate of eligibility for entrance to a medical school from the Board of
Medical Education; (c) a certificate of good moral character issued by two former
 professors in the college of liberal arts; and (d) birth certificate. 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.

xxx xxx x x x (Emphasis supplied)

MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985, issued by the then Minister of Education, Culture and Sports and
dated 23 August 1985, established a uniform admission test called the National Medical
Admission Test (NMAT) as an additional requirement for issuance of a certificate of eligibility for
admission into medical schools of the Philippines, beginning with the school year 1986-1987.
This Order goes on to state that:

2. The NMAT, an aptitude test, is considered as an instrument toward upgrading the

selection of applicants for admission into the medical schools and its calculated to
improve the quality of medical education in the country. The cutoff score for the
successful applicants, based on the scores on the NMAT, shall be determined every
year by the Board of Medical Education after consultation with the Association of
Philippine Medical Colleges. The NMAT rating of each applicant, together with the other
admission requirements as presently called for under existing rules, shall serve as a
basis for the issuance of the prescribed certificate of elegibility for admission into the
medical colleges.

3. Subject to the prior approval of the Board of Medical Education, each medical college
may give other tests for applicants who have been issued a corresponding certificate of
eligibility for admission that will yield information on other aspects of the applicant's
personality to complement the information derived from the NMAT.

xxx xxx xxx

8. No applicant shall be issued the requisite Certificate of Eligibility for Admission (CEA),
or admitted for enrollment as first year student in any medical college, beginning the
school year, 1986-87, without the required NMAT qualification as called for under this
Order. (Underscoring supplied)

Pursuant to MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985, the private respondent Center conducted NMATs for
entrance to medical colleges during the school year 1986-1987. In December 1986 and in April
1987, respondent Center conducted the NMATs for admission to medical colleges during the
school year 1987.1988.1avvphi1

Petitioners raise the question of whether or not a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued to
enjoin the enforcement of Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act No. 2382, as amended, and
MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985, pending resolution of the issue of constitutionality of the assailed
statute and administrative order. We regard this issue as entirely peripheral in nature. It scarcely
needs documentation that a court would issue a writ of preliminary injunction only when the
petitioner assailing a statute or administrative order has made out a case of unconstitutionality
strong enough to overcome, in the mind of the judge, the presumption of constitutionality, aside
from showing a clear legal right to the remedy sought. The fundamental issue is of course the
constitutionality of the statute or order assailed.
1. The petitioners invoke a number of provisions of the 1987 Constitution which are, in their
assertion, violated by the continued implementation of Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act
2381, as amended, and MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985. The provisions invoked read as follows:

(a) Article 11, Section 11: "The state values the dignity of every human person and
guarantees full respect of human rights. "

(b) ArticleII, Section l3: "The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation building
and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual and social well
being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their
involvement in public and civic affairs."

(c) Article II, Section 17: "The State shall give priority to education, science and
technology, arts, culture and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate
social progress and to promote total human liberation and development. "

(d) Article XIV, Section l: "The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to
quality education at all levels and take appropriate steps to make such education
accessible to all. "

(e) Article XIV, Section 5 (3): "Every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of
study, subject to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements."

Article II of the 1987 Constitution sets forth in its second half certain "State policies" which the
government is enjoined to pursue and promote. The petitioners here have not seriously
undertaken to demonstrate to what extent or in what manner the statute and the administrative
order they assail collide with the State policies embodied in Sections 11, 13 and 17. They have
not, in other words, discharged the burden of proof which lies upon them. This burden is heavy
enough where the constitutional provision invoked is relatively specific, rather than abstract, in
character and cast in behavioral or operational terms. That burden of proof becomes of
necessity heavier where the constitutional provision invoked is cast, as the second portion of
Article II is cast, in language descriptive of basic policies, or more precisely, of basic objectives
of State policy and therefore highly generalized in tenor. The petitioners have not made their
case, even a prima facie case, and we are not compelled to speculate and to imagine how the
legislation and regulation impugned as unconstitutional could possibly offend the constitutional
provisions pointed to by the petitioners.

Turning to Article XIV, Section 1, of the 1987 Constitution, we note that once more petitioners
have failed to demonstrate that the statute and regulation they assail in fact clash with that
provision. On the contrary we may note-in anticipation of discussion infra — that the statute and
the regulation which petitioners attack are in fact designed to promote "quality education" at the
level of professional schools. When one reads Section 1 in relation to Section 5 (3) of Article
XIV as one must one cannot but note that the latter phrase of Section 1 is not to be read with
absolute literalness. The State is not really enjoined to take appropriate steps to make quality
education " accessible to all who might for any number of reasons wish to enroll in a
professional school but rather merely to make such education accessible to all who qualify
under "fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements. "

2. In the trial court, petitioners had made the argument that Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act
No. 2382, as amended, offend against the constitutional principle which forbids the undue
delegation of legislative power, by failing to establish the necessary standard to be followed by
the delegate, the Board of Medical Education. The general principle of non-delegation of
legislative power, which both flows from the reinforces the more fundamental rule of the
separation and allocation of powers among the three great departments of government,1 must
be applied with circumspection in respect of statutes which like the Medical Act of 1959, deal
with subjects as obviously complex and technical as medical education and the practice of
medicine in our present day world. Mr. Justice Laurel stressed this point 47 years ago
in Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. vs. The Public Service Commission:2

One thing, however, is apparent in the development of the principle of separation of

powers and that is that the maxim of delegatus non potest delegare or delegate potestas
non potest delegare, adopted this practice (Delegibus et Consuetudiniis Anglia edited by
G.E. Woodbine, Yale University Press, 1922, Vol. 2, p. 167) but which is also recognized
in principle in the Roman Law (d. 17.18.3) has been made to adapt itself to the
complexities of modern government, giving rise to the adoption, within certain limits of
the principle of "subordinate legislation," not only in the United States and England but in
practically all modern governments. (People vs. Rosenthal and Osmena [68 Phil. 318,
1939]. Accordingly, with the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the
subjects of governmental regulation and the increased difficulty of administering the
laws, there is a constantly growing tendency toward the delegation of greater power by
the legislature, and toward the approval of the practice by the courts." 3

The standards set for subordinate legislation in the exercise of rule making authority by an
administrative agency like the Board of Medical Education are necessarily broad and highly
abstract. As explained by then Mr. Justice Fernando in Edu v. Ericta4 —

The standard may be either expressed or implied. If the former, the non-delegation
objection is easily met. The standard though does not have to be spelled out specifically.
It could be implied from the policy and purpose of the act considered as a whole. In the
Reflector Law, clearly the legislative objective is public safety. What is sought to be
attained as in Calalang v. Williams is "safe transit upon the roads. 5

We believe and so hold that the necessary standards are set forth in Section 1 of the 1959
Medical Act: "the standardization and regulation of medical education" and in Section 5 (a) and
7 of the same Act, the body of the statute itself, and that these considered together are sufficient
compliance with the requirements of the non-delegation principle.

3. The petitioners also urge that the NMAT prescribed in MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985, is an
"unfair, unreasonable and inequitable requirement," which results in a denial of due process.
Again, petitioners have failed to specify just what factors or features of the NMAT render it
"unfair" and "unreasonable" or "inequitable." They appear to suggest that passing the NMAT is
an unnecessary requirement when added on top of the admission requirements set out in
Section 7 of the Medical Act of 1959, and other admission requirements established by internal
regulations of the various medical schools, public or private. Petitioners arguments thus appear
to relate to utility and wisdom or desirability of the NMAT requirement. But constitutionality is
essentially a question of power or authority: this Court has neither commission or competence
to pass upon questions of the desirability or wisdom or utility of legislation or administrative
regulation. Those questions must be address to the political departments of the government not
to the courts.
There is another reason why the petitioners' arguments must fail: the legislative and
administrative provisions impugned by them constitute, to the mind of the Court, a valid exercise
of the police power of the state. The police power, it is commonplace learning, is the pervasive
and non-waivable power and authority of the sovereign to secure and promote an the important
interests and needs — in a word, the public order — of the general community.6 An important
component of that public order is the health and physical safety and well being of the
population, the securing of which no one can deny is a legitimate objective of governmental
effort and regulation.7

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 practice of medicine in all its branches has long been recognized as a
reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public.8 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.9 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.10 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 stage 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 for 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]11 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.

4. Petitioners have contended, finally, that MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985, is in conflict with the
equal protection clause of the Constitution. More specifically, petitioners assert that that portion
of the MECS Order which provides that
 the cutoff score for the successful applicants, based on the scores on the NMAT, shall
be determined every-year by the Board of Medical 11 Education after consultation with
the Association of Philippine Medical Colleges. (Emphasis supplied)

infringes the requirements of equal protection. They assert, in other words, that students
seeking admission during a given school year, e.g., 1987-1988, when subjected to a different
cutoff score than that established for an, e.g., earlier school year, are discriminated against and
that this renders the MECS Order "arbitrary and capricious." The force of this argument is more
apparent than real. Different cutoff scores for different school years may be dictated by differing
conditions obtaining during those years. Thus, the appropriate cutoff score for a given year may
be a function of such factors as the number of students who have reached the cutoff score
established the preceding year; the number of places available in medical schools during the
current year; the average score attained during the current year; the level of difficulty of the test
given during the current year, and so forth. To establish a permanent and immutable cutoff
score regardless of changes in circumstances from year to year, may wen result in an
unreasonable rigidity. The above language in MECS Order No. 52, far from being arbitrary or
capricious, leaves the Board of Medical Education with the measure of flexibility needed to meet
circumstances as they change.

We conclude that prescribing the NMAT and requiring certain minimum scores therein as a
condition for admission to medical schools in the Philippines, do not constitute an
unconstitutional imposition.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for certiorari is DISMISSED and the Order of the respondent trial
court denying the petition for a writ of preliminary injunction is AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioners.

SO ORDERED
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 89572 December 21, 1989

DEPARTMENT 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. 3

We 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.5

In 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.6

The 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.
REPUBLIC ACT No. 4224

AN ACT TO AMEND CERTAIN SECTIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED TWENTY-

THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-TWO, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "THE MEDICAL ACT OF
1959."

Section 1. Sections three, four, five, six, seven, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen,
fifteen, sixteen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, and twenty-five of Republic
Act Numbered Twenty-three hundred and eighty-two are hereby amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 3. Composition of the 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 the Philippine Medical
Association; the Dean of the College of Medicine, University of the Philippines; a representative
of the Council of Deans of medical schools; and a representative chosen by the Philippine
Association of Colleges and Universities, as members.

"Sec. 4. Compensation and traveling expenses. The chairman and the members of the
secretary of the Board of Medical Education shall be entitled to twenty-five pesos per diem for
every meeting, provided, the number of meeting authorized with a per diem shall not exceed
four times in a month, except officials receiving regular salaries from the Government and for
traveling expenses in connection with their official duties as herein provided.

"Sec. 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 minimum qualification of
teaching personnel, including student-teacher ratio;

"(d) To recommend the minimum required curriculum;

"(e) 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;

"(f) To keep a register of medical students and to collect from said medical students the
amount of five pesos each which shall accrue to the operating fund of the Board of
Medical Education;
 "(g) To select, determine and approve hospitals or some departments of the hospitals for
training which comply with the minimum specific physical facilities as provided for in
subparagraph (b) hereof; and

"(h) To promulgate and prescribe and enforce necessary rules and regulations for the
proper implementation of the foregoing functions.

"Sec. 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, which should include
the following subjects with their corresponding number of units:

"English 18
"Latin 3
"Mathematics, including accounting and
9
statistics
"Philosophy, including psychology and
12
logic
"Zoology and Botany 15
"Physics 8
"Chemistry 21
"Humanities and Social Science 12
"Library Science 1

As many units of Spanish shall be required as may be provided by law for cultural, social and
nationalistic studies.

"The medical course shall be at least five years, including not less than eleven months rotating
internship in an approved hospital, and shall consist of the following subjects:

"Anatomy

"Physiology

"Biochemistry and Nutrition

"Pharmacology

"Microbiology

"Parasitology

"Medicine and Therapeutics

 "Pathology

"Gynecology

"Ophthalmology, Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology

"Pediatrics

"Obstetrics

"Surgery

"Preventive Medicine and Public Health

"Legal Medicine, including Medical Jurisprudence

"Medical Economics and Ethics

"Sec. 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 record showing a bachelor's degree in science or arts
or its equivalent as herein provided; (b) a certificate of eligibility for entrance to a medical school
from the Board of Medical Education; (c) a certificate of good moral character issued by two of
his former professors in the College of Liberal Arts; and (d) birth certificate. 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 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 institutions 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, graduates, 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 or full-time or part-time basis

"4. Requirements for admission

"5. Grading system

"6. Requirements for promotion

"7. Requirements for graduation

"8. Curriculum and description of course by departments and

 "9. Number of students enrolled in each class in the preceding year.

"Sec. 9. Candidates for board examinations. 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
citizen thereof;

"(2) He shall be of good moral character;

"(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 Government.

"Sec. 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, physically examine any person, and
diagnose, treat, operate or prescribe any remedy for human disease, injury, deformity, physical,
mental, psychical 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 psychical condition; or (c) who shall falsely use the title of M.D. after his name.

"Sec. 11. Exemptions. The preceding section shall not be construed to affect (a) any medical
student duly enrolled in an approved medical college or school, or graduate under training,
serving without any professional fee in any government or private hospital, provided that he
render 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 eyeglasses, 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; (g) any clinical
psychologist, or mental hygienist, in the performance of his duties in regard to patients with
psychiatric problems, provided such performance is done with the prescription and direct
supervision of a duly registered physician, and (h) prosthetists who fit artificial limbs under the
supervision of a registered physician.
"Sec. 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 case, or those attached to international bodies or
organizations 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, upon previous authorization of the Board of
Medical Examiners, 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 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.

"Sec. 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 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
association during the month of September each year. The chairman of the Board shall be
elected from among themselves by the members 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 examinations in more than four subjects or groups of subjects as
hereinafter provided. The distribution of subjects 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 the 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 tabulation of results, without names and
immediately upon receipt of the approved tabulation from the Office of the President, the Board
shall insert the names and cause the publication of the names of successful candidates in
alphabetical order without the ratings obtained by each, and at the same time transmit a copy
thereof to the Office of the President.
"Sec. 14. Qualifications of examiner. 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 as
certified by the Philippine Medical Association, (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 any
institution where any branch of medicine is taught, at the time of his appointment.

"Sec. 15. Tenure of office and compensation of members. The members of the Board of Medical
Examiners shall hold office for a term of three years without immediate reappointment and until
their successors shall have been duly appointed and duly qualified. During the first year of the
implementation of this amendment, the members of the Board of Medical Examiners shall hold
office as follows:

"Two members of a term of one year;

"Two members of a term of two years;

"Two members of a term of three years:

Provided, That yearly appointments of two new members will be made to replace those whose
terms will expire: Provided, further, That appointments to fill up vacancies created by causes
other than through expiration of regular terms will be for the unexpired period only. 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 physical
examination, provided the sum of said compensation does not exceed eighteen thousand pesos
annually.

"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 of dishonorable conduct.

"Sec. 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, sex, 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 the 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 on clinics 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 shall keep all the records and proceedings, and issue and receive
all papers in connection with any and all complaints presented to the Board.
"Sec. 18. Dates of the examinations. The Board of Medical Examiners shall give examinations
for the registration of physicians, twice a year, on dates to be determined by it provided that the
interval between the first and the second examinations in a year shall be six months, 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.

"Sec. 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 complete physician

75.00
examination
"For preliminary or final examination 40.00
"For registration as physician 20.00

"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.

"Sec. 20. Issuance of Certificates of Registration, grounds for refusal of same. The
Commissioner of Civil Service, the chairman, the members and the Secretary of the Board of
Medical Examiners shall sign 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 the investigation by the Board of Medical Examiners, or has been declared to be
of unsound mind.

"Sec. 21. Scope of examination. The following subjects shall be given in the examinations:

"(a) Preliminary Examination

"1) Anatomy and Histology

"2) Physiology

"3) Biochemistry

"4) Microbiology and Parasitology

"(b) Final Examination

"1) Pharmacology and Therapeutics

"2) Pathology

"3) Medicine
 "4) Obstetrics and Gynecology

"5) Pediatrics and Nutrition

"6) Surgery and Ophthalmology, Otolaryngology and Rhinology

"7) Preventive Medicine and Public Health, and

"8) Legal Medicine, Ethics and Medical Jurisprudence

"(c) Complete Examination

"1) Anatomy and Histology

"2) Physiology

"3) Biochemistry

"4) Microbiology and Parasitology

"5) Pharmacology and Therapeutics

"6) Pathology

"7) Medicine

"8) Obstetrics and Gynecology

"9) Pediatrics and Nutrition

"10) Surgery and Ophthalmology, Otolaryngology and Rhinology

"11) Preventive medicine and Public Health, and

"12) Legal Medicine, Ethics and Medical Jurisprudence

"The questions shall be the same for all applicants. All answers must be written in English. 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 fifty per
cent in any subject: Provided, That a candidate who fails for the third time in the complete or
final examinations will be required to take a refresher course prescribed by the Board of Medical
Examiners of at least one (1) year in a recognized medical school or college before he could be
allowed to take subsequent examinations.

"If the applicant is found to be proficient in the subjects in the preliminary examinations, he or
she shall be exempt in these subjects at the time of the final examination. In case of failure in
any subject at any preliminary examination given in accordance with this section, the candidate
shall not then be reexamined in such subject in which he may have failed until he shall have
finished the prescribed course of medical study and internship.

"Sec. 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 examinations; (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 shall be conducted by at least two members of the Board of

Medical Examiners with one legal officer sitting during the investigation, 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 investigation.

"Sec. 25. Rights of respondents. The respondent physician shall be entitled to be represented
by counsel or be heard in person, 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 2. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: June 19, 1965

G.R. No. 100152 March 31, 2000

ACEBEDO OPTICAL COMPANY, INC., petitioner,

vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Hon. MAMINDIARA MANGOTARA, in his
capacity as Presiding Judge of the RTC, 12th Judicial Region, Br. 1, Iligan City;
SAMAHANG OPTOMETRIST Sa PILIPINAS — Iligan City Chapter, LEO T. CAHANAP, City
Legal Officer, and Hon. CAMILO P. CABILI, City Mayor of Iligan,respondents.

PURISIMA, J.:

At bar is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to nullify the dismissal
by the Court of Appeals of the original petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus filed by
the herein petitioner against the City Mayor and City Legal Officer of Iligan and the Samahang
Optometrist sa Pilipinas — Iligan Chapter (SOPI, for brevity).

The antecedent facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are as follows:
Petitioner applied with the Office of the City Mayor of Iligan for a business permit. After
consideration of petitioner's application and the opposition interposed thereto by local
optometrists, respondent City Mayor issued Business Permit No. 5342 subject to the following
conditions:

1. Since it is a corporation, Acebedo cannot put up an optical clinic but only a

commercial store;

2. Acebedo cannot examine and/or prescribe reading and similar optical glasses for
patients, because these are functions of optical clinics;

3. Acebedo cannot sell reading and similar eyeglasses without a prescription having first
been made by an independent optometrist (not its employee) or independent optical
clinic. Acebedo can only sell directly to the public, without need of a prescription, Ray-
Ban and similar eyeglasses;

4. Acebedo cannot advertise optical lenses and eyeglasses, but can advertise Ray-Ban
and similar glasses and frames;

5. Acebedo is allowed to grind lenses but only upon the prescription of an independent
optometrist. 1

On December 5, 1988, private respondent Samahan ng Optometrist Sa Pilipinas (SOPI), Iligan

Chapter, through its Acting President, Dr. Frances B. Apostol, lodged a complaint against the
petitioner before the Office of the City Mayor, alleging that Acebedo had violated the conditions
set forth in its business permit and requesting the cancellation and/or revocation of such permit.

Acting on such complaint, then City Mayor Camilo P. Cabili designated City Legal Officer Leo T.
Cahanap to conduct an investigation on the matter. On July 12, 1989, respondent City Legal
Officer submitted a report to the City Mayor finding the herein petitioner guilty of violating all the
conditions of its business permit and recommending the disqualification of petitioner from
operating its business in Iligan City. The report further advised that no new permit shall be
granted to petitioner for the year 1989 and should only be given time to wind up its affairs.

On July 19, 1989, the City Mayor sent petitioner a Notice of Resolution and Cancellation of
Business Permit effective as of said date and giving petitioner three (3) months to wind up its
affairs.

On October 17, 1989, petitioner brought a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with
prayer for restraining order/preliminary injunction against the respondents, City Mayor, City
Legal Officer and Samahan ng Optometrists sa Pilipinas-Iligan City Chapter (SOPI), docketed
as Civil Case No. 1497 before the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Branch I. Petitioner alleged
that (1) it was denied due process because it was not given an opportunity to present its
evidence during the investigation conducted by the City Legal Officer; (2) it was denied equal
protection of the laws as the limitations imposed on its business permit were not imposed on
similar businesses in Iligan City; (3) the City Mayor had no authority to impose the special
conditions on its business permit; and (4) the City Legal Officer had no authority to conduct the
investigation as the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Professional Regulation
Commission and the Board of Optometry.
Respondent SOPI interposed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition on the ground of non-exhaustion
of administrative remedies but on November 24, 1989, Presiding Judge Mamindiara P.
Mangotara deferred resolution of such Motion to Dismiss until after trial of the case on the
merits. However, the prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction was granted. Thereafter,
respondent SOPI filed its answer.1âwphi1.nêt

On May 30, 1990, the trial court dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies, and dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction it earlier issued. Petitioner's motion for
reconsideration met the same fate. It was denied by an Order dated June 28, 1990.

On October 3, 1990, instead of taking an appeal, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus with the Court of Appeals seeking to set aside the questioned Order
of Dismissal, branding the same as tainted with grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial
court.

On January 24, 1991, the Ninth Division 2 of the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack
of merit. Petitioner's motion reconsideration was also denied in the Resolution dated May 15,
1991.

Undaunted, petitioner has come before this court via the present petition, theorizing that:

A.

THE RESPONDENT COURT, WHILE CORRECTLY HOLDING THAT THE

RESPONDENT CITY MAYOR ACTED BEYOND HIS AUTHORITY IN IMPOSING THE
SPECIAL CONDITIONS IN THE PERMIT AS THEY HAD NO BASIS IN ANY LAW OR
ORDINANCE, ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE SAID SPECIAL CONDITIONS
NEVERTHELESS BECAME BINDING ON PETITIONER UPON ITS ACCEPTANCE
THEREOF AS A PRIVATE AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT.

B.

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE

CONTRACT BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE CITY OF ILIGAN WAS ENTERED
INTO BY THE LATTER IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS PROPRIETARY
FUNCTIONS.

The petition is impressed with merit.

Although petitioner agrees with the finding of the Court of Appeals that respondent City Mayor
acted beyond the scope of his authority in imposing the assailed conditions in subject business
permit, it has excepted to the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the said conditions nonetheless
became binding on petitioner, once accepted, as a private agreement or contract. Petitioner
maintains that the said special conditions are null and void for being ultra vires and cannot be
given effect; and therefore, the principle of estoppel cannot apply against it.

On the other hand, the public respondents, City Mayor and City Legal Officer, private
respondent SOPI and the Office of the Solicitor General contend that as a valid exercise of
police power, respondent City Mayor has the authority to impose, as he did, special conditions
in the grant of business permits.
Police power as an inherent attribute of sovereignty is the power to prescribe regulations to
promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the
people. 9 The State, through the legislature, has delegated the exercise of police power to local
government units, as agencies of the State, in order to effectively accomplish and carry out the
declared objects of their creation. 4 This delegation of police power is embodied in the general
welfare clause of the Local Government Code which provides:

Sec. 6. General Welfare. — Every local government unit shall exercise the powers
expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary,
appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are
essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial
jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the
preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of
the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of
appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public
morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment
among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and
convenience of their inhabitants.

The scope of police power has been held to be so comprehensive as to encompass almost all
matters affecting the health, safety, peace, order, morals, comfort and convenience of the
community. Police power is essentially regulatory in nature and the power to issue licenses or
grant business permits, if exercised for a regulatory and not revenue-raising purpose, is within
the ambit of this power. 5

The authority of city mayors to issue or grant licenses and business permits is beyond cavil. It is
provided for by law. Section 171, paragraph 2 (n) of Batas Pambansa Bilang 337 otherwise
known as the Local Government Code of 1983, reads:

Sec. 171. The City Mayor shall:

xxx xxx xxx

n) Grant or refuse to grant, pursuant to law, city licenses or permits, and revoke the
same for violation of law or ordinance or the conditions upon which they are granted.

However, the power to grant or issue licenses or business permits must always be exercised in
accordance with law, with utmost observance of the rights of all concerned to due process and
equal protection of the law.

Succinct and in point is the ruling of this Court, that:

. . . While a business may be regulated, such regulation must, however, be within the
bounds of reason, i.e., the regulatory ordinance must be reasonable, and its provision
cannot be oppressive amounting to an arbitrary interference with the business or calling
subject of regulation. A lawful business or calling may not, under the guise of regulation,
be unreasonably interfered with even by the exercise of police power. . . .

xxx xxx xxx

 . . . The exercise of police power by the local government is valid unless it contravenes
the fundamental law of the land or an act of the legislature, or unless it is against public
policy or is unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discriminating or in derogation of a
common right. 6

In the case under consideration, the business permit granted by respondent City Mayor to
petitioner was burdened with several conditions. Petitioner agrees with the holding by the Court
of Appeals that respondent City Mayor acted beyond his authority in imposing such special
conditions in its permit as the same have no basis in the law or ordinance. Public respondents
and private respondent SOPI, on the other hand, are one in saying that the imposition of said
special conditions on petitioner's business permit is well within the authority of the City Mayor as
a valid exercise of police power.

As aptly discussed by the Solicitor General in his Comment, the power to issue licenses and
permits necessarily includes the corollary power to revoke, withdraw or cancel the same. And
the power to revoke or cancel, likewise includes the power to restrict through the imposition of
certain conditions. In the case of Austin-Hardware, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 7 it was held that
the power to license carries with it the authority to provide reasonable terms and conditions
under which the licensed business shall be conducted. As the Solicitor General puts it:

If the City Mayor is empowered to grant or refuse to grant a license, which is a broader
power, it stands to reason that he can also exercise a lesser power that is reasonably
incidental to his express power, i.e. to restrict a license through the imposition of certain
conditions, especially so that there is no positive prohibition to the exercise of such
prerogative by the City Mayor, nor is there any particular official or body vested with
such authority. 8

However, the present inquiry does not stop there, as the Solicitor General believes. The power
or authority of the City Mayor to impose conditions or restrictions in the business permit is
indisputable. What petitioner assails are the conditions imposed in its particular case which, it
complains, amount to a confiscation of the business in which petitioner is engaged.

Distinction must be made between the grant of a license or permit to do business and the
issuance of a license to engage in the practice of a particular profession. The first is usually
granted by the local authorities and the second is issued by the Board or Commission tasked to
regulate the particular profession. A business permit authorizes the person, natural or
otherwise, to engage in business or some form of commercial activity. A professional license, on
the other hand, is the grant of authority to a natural person to engage in the practice or exercise
of his or her profession.

In the case at bar, what is sought by petitioner from respondent City Mayor is a permit to
engage in the business of running an optical shop. It does not purport to seek a license to
engage in the practice of optometry as a corporate body or entity, although it does have in its
employ, persons who are duly licensed to practice optometry by the Board of Examiners in
Optometry.

The case of Samahan ng Optometrists sa Pilipinas vs. Acebedo International Corporation, G.R.
No. 117097, 9promulgated by this Court on March 21, 1997, is in point. The factual antecedents
of that case are similar to those of the case under consideration and the issue ultimately
resolved therein is exactly the same issue posed for resolution by this Court en banc.
In the said case, the Acebedo International Corporation filed with the Office of the Municipal
Mayor an application for a business permit for the operation of a branch of Acebedo Optical in
Candon, Ilocos Sur. The application was opposed by the Samahan ng Optometrists sa
Pilipinas-Ilocos Sur Chapter, theorizing that Acebedo is a juridical entity not qualified to practice
optometry. A committee was created by the Office of the Mayor to study private respondent's
application. Upon recommendation of the said committee, Acebedo's application for a business
permit was denied. Acebedo filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court but the same was
dismissed. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's disposition,
prompting the Samahan ng Optometrists to elevate the matter to this Court.

The First Division of this Court, then composed of Honorable Justice Teodoro Padilla, Josue
Bellosillo, Jose Vitug and Santiago Kapunan, with Honorable Justice Regino Hermosisima, Jr.
as ponente, denied the petition and ruled in favor of respondent Acebedo International
Corporation, holding that "the fact that private respondent hires optometrists who practice their
profession in the course of their employment in private respondent's optical shops, does not
translate into a practice of optometry by private respondent itself," 10 The Court further
elucidated that in both the old and new Optometry Law, R.A. No. 1998, superseded by R.A. No.
8050, it is significant to note that there is no prohibition against the hiring by corporations of
optometrists. The Court concluded thus:

All told, there is no law that prohibits the hiring by corporations of optometrists or
considers the hiring by corporations of optometrists as a practice by the corporation itself
of the profession of optometry.

In the present case, the objective of the imposition of subject conditions on petitioner's business
permit could be attained by requiring the optometrists in petitioner's employ to produce a valid
certificate of registration as optometrist, from the Board of Examiners in Optometry. A business
permit is issued primarily to regulate the conduct of business and the City Mayor cannot,
through the issuance of such permit, regulate the practice of a profession, like that of optometry.
Such a function is within the exclusive domain of the administrative agency specifically
empowered by law to supervise the profession, in this case the Professional Regulations
Commission and the Board of Examiners in Optometry.

It is significant to note that during the deliberations of the bicameral conference committee of the
Senate and the House of Representatives on R.A. 8050 (Senate Bill No. 1998 and House Bill
No. 14100), the committee failed to reach a consensus as to the prohibition on indirect practice
of optometry by corporations. The proponent of the bill, former Senator Freddie Webb, admitted
thus:

Senator Webb: xxx xxx xxx

The focus of contention remains to be the proposal of prohibiting the indirect practice of
optometry by corporations.1âwphi1 We took a second look and even a third look at the
issue in the bicameral conference, but a compromise remained elusive. 11

Former Senator Leticia Ramos-Shahani likewise voted her reservation in casting her vote:

Senator Shahani: Mr. President.

 The optometry bills have evoked controversial views from the members of the panel.
While we realize the need to uplift the standards of optometry as a profession, the
consesnsus of both Houses was to avoid touching sensitive issues which properly
belong to judicial determination. Thus, the bicameral conference committee decided to
leave the issue of indirect practice of optometry and the use of trade names open to the
wisdom of the Courts which are vested with the prerogative of interpreting the laws. 12

From the foregoing, it is thus evident that Congress has not adopted a unanimous position on
the matter of prohibition of indirect practice of optometry by corporations, specifically on the
hiring and employment of licensed optometrists by optical corporations. It is clear that Congress
left the resolution of such issue for judicial determination, and it is therefore proper for this Court
to resolve the issue.

Even in the United States, jurisprudence varies and there is a conflict of opinions among the
federal courts as to the right of a corporation or individual not himself licensed, to hire and
employ licensed optometrists. 13

Courts have distinguished between optometry as a learned profession in the category of law
and medicine, and optometry as a mechanical art. And, insofar as the courts regard optometry
as merely a mechanical art, they have tended to find nothing objectionable in the making and
selling of eyeglasses, spectacles and lenses by corporations so long as the patient is actually
examined and prescribed for by a qualified practitioner. 14

The primary purpose of the statute regulating the practice of optometry is to insure that
optometrical services are to be rendered by competent and licensed persons in order to protect
the health and physical welfare of the people from the dangers engendered by unlicensed
practice. Such purpose may be fully accomplished although the person rendering the service is
employed by a corporation. 15

Furthermore, it was ruled that the employment of a qualified optometrist by a corporation is not
against public policy. 16 Unless prohibited by statutes, a corporation has all the contractual rights
that an individual has 17 and it does not become the practice of medicine or optometry because
of the presence of a physician or optometrist. 18 The manufacturing, selling, trading and
bartering of eyeglasses and spectacles as articles of merchandise do not constitute the practice
of optometry. 19

In the case of Dvorine vs. Castelberg Jewelry Corporation, 20 defendant corporation conducted
as part of its business, a department for the sale of eyeglasses and the furnishing of
optometrical services to its clients. It employed a registered optometrist who was compensated
at a regular salary and commission and who was furnished instruments and appliances needed
for the work, as well as an office. In holding that corporation was not engaged in the practice of
optometry, the court ruled that there is no public policy forbidding the commercialization of
optometry, as in law and medicine, and recognized the general practice of making it a
commercial business by advertising and selling eyeglasses.

To accomplish the objective of the regulation, a state may provide by statute that corporations
cannot sell eyeglasses, spectacles, and lenses unless a duly licensed physician or a duly
qualified optometrist is in charge of, and in personal attendance at the place where such articles
are sold. 21 In such a case, the patient's primary and essential safeguard lies in the optometrist's
control of the "treatment" by means of prescription and preliminary and final examination. 22
In analogy, it is noteworthy that private hospitals are maintained by corporations incorporated
for the purpose of furnishing medical and surgical treatment. In the course of providing such
treatments, these corporations employ physicians, surgeons and medical practitioners, in the
same way that in the course of manufacturing and selling eyeglasses, eye frames and optical
lenses, optical shops hire licensed optometrists to examine, prescribe and dispense ophthalmic
lenses. No one has ever charged that these corporations are engaged in the practice of
medicine. There is indeed no valid basis for treating corporations engaged in the business of
running optical shops differently.

It also bears stressing, as petitioner has pointed out, that the public and private respondents did
not appeal from the ruling of the Court of Appeals. Consequently, the holding by the Court of
Appeals that the act of respondent City Mayor in imposing the questioned special conditions on
petitioner's business permit is ultra vires cannot be put into issue here by the respondents. It is
well-settled that:

A party who has not appealed from the decision may not obtain any affirmative relief
from the appellate court other than what he had obtain from the lower court, if any,
whose decision is brought up on appeal. 23

. . . an appellee who is not an appellant may assign errors in his brief where his purpose
is to maintain the judgment on other grounds, but he cannot seek modification or
reversal of the judgment or affirmative relief unless he has also appealed. 24

Thus, respondents' submission that the imposition of subject special conditions on petitioner's
business permit is not ultra vires cannot prevail over the finding and ruling by the Court of
Appeals from which they (respondents) did not appeal.

Anent the second assigned error, petitioner maintains that its business permit issued by the City
Mayor is not a contract entered into by Iligan City in the exercise of its proprietary functions,
such that although petitioner agreed to such conditions, it cannot be held in estoppel since ultra
vires acts cannot be given effect.

Respondents, on the other hand, agree with the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the business
permit in question is in the nature of a contract between Iligan City and the herein petitioner, the
terms and conditions of which are binding upon agreement, and that petitioner is estopped from
questioning the same. Moreover, in the Resolution denying petitioner's motion for
reconsideration, the Court of Appeals held that the contract between the petitioner and the City
of Iligan was entered into by the latter in the performance of its proprietary functions.

This Court holds otherwise. It had occasion to rule that a license or permit is not in the nature of
a contract but a special privilege.

. . . a license or a permit is not a contract between the sovereignty and the licensee or
permitee, and is not a property in the constitutional sense, as to which the constitutional
proscription against impairment of the obligation of contracts may extend. A license is
rather in the nature of a special privilege, of a permission or authority to do what is within
its terms. It is not in any way vested, permanent or absolute. 25

It is therefore decisively clear that estoppel cannot apply in this case. The fact that petitioner
acquiesced in the special conditions imposed by the City Mayor in subject business permit does
not preclude it from challenging the said imposition, which is ultra vires or beyond the ambit of
authority of respondent City Mayor. Ultra vires acts or acts which are clearly beyond the scope
of one's authority are null and void and cannot be given any effect. The doctrine of estoppel
cannot operate to give effect to an act which is otherwise null and void or ultra vires.

The Court of Appeals erred in adjudging subject business permit as having been issued by
responded City Mayor in the performance of proprietary functions of Iligan City. As hereinabove
elaborated upon, the issuance of business licenses and permits by a municipality or city is
essentially regulatory in nature. The authority, which devolved upon local government units to
issue or grant such licenses or permits, is essentially in the exercise of the police power of the
State within the contemplation of the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED; the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP
No. 22995 REVERSED: and the respondent City Mayor is hereby ordered to reissue petitioner's
business permit in accordance with law and with this disposition. No pronouncement as to
costs.

SO ORDERED
 SECOND DIVISION

[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.

DECISION
TINGA, J.:

This petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure seeks to nullify
the Decision,[1] dated May 16, 2000, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283. The
appellate court affirmed the judgment[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[3] promulgated on August 25, 2000 of the Court of Appeals, denying petitioners
Motion for Reconsideration.
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.[4] The PRC asked the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to investigate whether any anomaly or irregularity marred
the February 1993 Physician Licensure Examination.
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.[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.[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.[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.[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],[9] to
take the physicians oath and to register them as physicians.

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.[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[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.
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.[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.[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,[14] they should be allowed to take their oaths as physicians
and be registered in the rolls of the PRC.
Hence, this petition raising the following issues:
I

WHETHER 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.

II

WHETHER 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.[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[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.
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.[17] Section 3
of Rule 65[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.
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.[19] Moreover, there must be statutory
authority for the performance of the act,[20] and the performance of the duty has been
refused.[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?
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.[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[23] pursuant to Section 20 of the Medical
Act of 1959?
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.[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.
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 shallsign 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[25] of the Medical Act of 1959.
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[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[27] of Rep.
Act No. 2382. In its Decision dated July 1, 1997, the Board ruled:

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.[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,[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.
Section 8[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.[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.
2. On the Right Of The Respondents To Be Registered As Physicians
The 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. [32] There must be a well-
defined, clear and certain legal right to the thing demanded.[33] It is long established rule that a
license to practice medicine is a privilege or franchise granted by the government.[34]
It is true that this Court has upheld the constitutional right[35] of every citizen to select a
profession or course of study subject to a fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic
requirements.[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.[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.[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.[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.[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.[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 Mandamus
Lastly, 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.[42] There is no longer any justiciable controversy so that any declaration
thereon would be of no practical use or value.[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.[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[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.[46] However, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply
where, as in this case, a pure question of law is raised.[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.
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
Republic Act no. 1885

AN ACT AMENDING SECTION SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY AND SEVEN HUNDRED

SEVENTY-ONE OF THE REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES TO
AUTHORIZE MEDICAL OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
IN THE PHILIPPINES TO PRACTICE MEDICINE
Section 1. Section seven hundred seventy and seven hundred seventy-one of the Revised
Administrative Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
“Section 770. Inhibition against practicing medicine by uncertificated persons. – No persons
shall practice medicine in the Philippines without having previously obtained the proper
certificate of registration issued by the Board of Medical Examiners as herein constituted, or the
lawful Board which was its predecessor, except as hereinafter stated in this section and in the
next following section of this Act.
“A person shall be considered to practice medicine within the meaning of this section, who shall,
for compensation or reward or even without the same diagnose, treat, operate, prescribe
remedies for any human disease, injury, deformity, physical or mental condition or anylment,
real or supposed, regardless of the nature of the remedy or treatment used or recommended, or
who shall, by means of signs, cards, advertisements, or in any other way either offer or
undertake by any means or method to diagnose, treat, manipulate, adjust, operate, or prescribe
for any human disease, pain, injury, deformity, physical or mental condition.”This section shall
not be construed to affect commissioned medical officers serving in the U.S. Army, Navy, or
Public Health Service in the discharge of their duties or medical officers of the United States
Veterans Administration, Manila Regional Office, in the discharge of their duties in accordance
with governing rules and regulations of said U. S. Veterans Administration: Provided, however,
That not more than three medical officers of the U. S. Veterans Administration shall be allowed
this exemption, and that said medical officers of the U. S. Veterans Administration shall submit
their names and qualifications to the Board of Medical Examiners for registration; or any one
serving without professional fees as interns on the resident staff of any legally incorporated
hospital; or the furnishing of medicine by authorized Government employees in Government
free dispensaries; or any legally registered dentist exclusively engaged in practicing dentistry; or
the application of massage whenever advised by duly registered physicians or limited to
hygienic or aesthetic purposes; or any persons who mechanically fits or sells lenses, artificial
eyes; limbs or other apparatus or appliances, or is engaged in the mechanical examination of
eyes, for the purpose of constructing or adjusting spectacles, eyeglasses, and lenses; or the
furnishing of medical assistance gratuitously in case of emergency or in places where the
services of the duly qualified physician, midwife, or nurse are not available or the administration
of family remedies; or the practice of chiropody.”
“Section 771. Persons exempt from registration. – Registration shall not be required of the
following classes of persons:
(a) Physicians and surgeons from other countries called in consultation.
(b) Medical students who are practicing medicine under the direct supervision of a duly
registered physician.
(c) Medical officers of the U. S. Army, U. S. Navy, or the U. S. Public Health Service, or the U.
S. Veterans Administration while the latter are engaged in the discharge of their duties in
accordance with governing rules and regulations of the veterans administration.
(d) Foreigners employed as technical officers or professors in such special branches of
medicine or surgery as may, in the judgment of the Secretary of (Public Instruction) Education,
be necessary and indispensable in the Philippines.
(c) In cases of epidemics or in municipalities where there is no legally qualified practicing
physician, or when the circumstances require it, in the interest of the public health, the Director
of Health may issue special authorizations, to all medical students who have completed the first
three years of their studies, or to persons who have qualified in medicine, and to graduate or
registered nurses, who may request it.”
Section 2. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved, June 22, 1957
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8981

AN ACT MODERNIZING THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION, REPEALING

FOR THE PURPOSE PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NUMBERED TWO HUNDRED AND
TWENTY-THREE, ENTITLED "CREATING THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATION
COMMISSION AND PRESCRIBING ITS POWERS AND FUNCTIONS," AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines Congress

assembled:

Section 1. Title – This Act shall be called the "PRC Modernization Act of 2000."

Section 2. Statement of Policy – The State recognizes the important role of professionals in
nation-building and, towards this end, promotes the sustained development of a reservoir of
professionals whose competence has been determined by honest and credible licensure
examinations and whose standards of professional service and practice are internationally
recognized and considered world-class brought about the regulatory measures, programs and
activities that foster professional growth and advancement.

Section 3. Professional Regulation Commission – There is hereby created a three-man

commission to be known as the Professional Regulation Commission, hereinafter referred to as
the Commission, which shall be attached to the office of the President for general direction and
coordination.

Section 4. Composition – The Commission shall be headed by one (1) full-time Chairperson
and two (2) full-time Commissioners, all to be appointed by the President for a term of seven (7)
years without reappointment to start from the time they assume office. Appointments to a
vacancy that occurs before the expiration of the term of a Commissioner shall cover only the
unexpired term of the immediate predecessor. At the expiration of the Chairperson, the most
senior of the Commissioners shall temporarily assume and perform the duties and functions of
the Chairperson until a permanent Chairperson is appointed by the President.

The Chairperson or Commissioner shall be at least forty (40) years of age, holding a valid
certificate of registration/professional license and a valid professional identification card or a
valid certificate of competency issued by the Commission or a valid professional license issued
by any government agency, familiar with the principles and methods of professional regulation
and/or licensing and has had at least five (5) years of executive or management
experience: Provided, That, one (1) of the Commissioners must be a past Chairperson/member
of a Professional Regulatory Board.

Section 5. Exercise of Powers and Functions of the Commission – The Chairperson of the
Commission, and the Commissioners as members thereof shall sit and act as a body to
exercise general administrative, executive and policy-making functions of the Commission. The
Commission shall establish and maintain a high standard of admission to the practice of all
professions and at all times ensure and safeguard the integrity of all licensure examinations.

The Chairperson shall act as the presiding and chief executive officer of the Commission. As
presiding officer, he/she shall preside over the meetings of the Commission sitting as a collegial
body. As chief executive officer of the Commission, he/she shall be responsible for the
implementation of the policies and the programs adopted by the Commission for the general
administration of the Commission. He/she shall perform such other activities which are
necessary for the effective exercise of the powers, functions and responsibilities of the
Commission.

Section 6. Compensation and Other Benefits – The Chairperson shall receive compensation
and allowances equivalent to that of a Department Secretary while the Commissioners shall
receive compensation and allowances equivalent to that of an Undersecretary. The Chairperson
and the members of the Commission shall be entitled to retirement benefits provided under
Republic Act Numbered Fifteen Hundred and Sixty Eight, as amended by Republic Act
Numbered Three Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Five.

Section 7. Powers, Functions and Responsibilities of the Commission – The powers, functions,
and responsibilities of the Commission are as follows:

(a) To administer, implement and enforce the regulatory policies of the national
government with respect to the regulation and licensing of the various professions and
occupations under its jurisdiction including the enhancement and maintenance of
professional and occupational standards and ethics and the enforcement of the rules
and regulations relative thereto:

(b) To perform any and all acts, enter into contracts, make such rules and regulations
and issue such orders and other administrative issuance as may be necessary in the
execution and implementation of its functions and the improvement of its services;

(c) To review, revise, and approve resolutions, embodying policies promulgated by the
Professional Regulatory Boards in the exercise of their powers and functions or in
implementing the laws regulating their respective professions and other official actions
on non-ministerial matters within their respective jurisdictions;

(d) To administer and conduct the licensure examinations of the various regulatory
boards in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission;
determine and fix the places and dates of examinations; use publicly or privately owned
buildings and facilities for examination purposes; conduct more than one (1) licensure
examination: Provided, That, when there are two (2) or more examinations given in a
year, at least one (1) examinations shall be held on weekdays (Monday to
Friday): Provided, further, That, if only one (1) examination is given in a year, this shall
be held only on weekdays: Provided, finally, That, the Commission is also authorized to
require the completion of a refresher course where the examinee has failed to pass
three (3) times, except as otherwise provided by law; approve the results of
examinations and the release of the same; adopt measures to preserve the integrity and
inviolability of licensure examinations; appoint supervisors and room watchers from
among the employees of the government and/or private individuals with baccalaureate
degrees, who have been trained by the Commission for the purpose and who shall be
entitled to a reasonable daily allowance for every examination day actually attended, to
be determined and fixed by the Commission; publish the list of successful examinees;
provide schools, colleges and universities, public and private, offering courses for
licensure examinations, with copies of sample test questions on examinations recently
conducted by the Commission and copies of the syllabi or terms of specifications of
subjects for licensure examinations; and impose the penalty of suspension or prohibition
from taking licensure examinations to any examinee charged and found guilty of
violating the rules and regulations governing the conduct of licensure examinations
promulgated by the Commission;

(e) To admit the successful examinees to the practice of the profession or occupation;
cause the entry of their names on its registry book and computerized database; issue
certificates of registration/professional license, bearing the registrant’s name, picture,
and registration number, signed by all the members of the Board concerned and the
Chairperson, with the official seal of the Board and the Commission affixed thereto which
certificate shall be the authority to practice; and at the option of the professional
concerned, ministerially issue the professional identification card, to be used solely for
the purpose of identification, upon payment of the appropriate amount: Provided, That,
marine deck and marine engineer officers shall also be issued endorsement certificates
exclusively by the Commission pursuant to the 1978 and 1995 Standards of Training,
Certification and Watch-keeping (STCW) Convention, to the exclusion of any other
government agency, Section 1(2) of Executive Order No. 149, Series of 1999 and
provisions of other existing laws, executive orders, administrative issuance/regulations to
the contrary notwithstanding: Provided, further, That, once a certificate of
registration/professional license, or certificate of competency, in the case of marine deck
and engine officers are issued, this cannot be withdrawn, cancelled, revoked, or
suspended except for just cause as may be provided by law after due notice and
hearing;

(f) To have custody of all the records of the various Boards, including examination
papers, minutes of deliberation, records of administrative cases and investigations and
examination results for control and disposition;

(g) To determine and fix the amount of fees to be charged and collected for examination,
registration, registration without examination, professional identification card,
certification, docket, appeal, replacement, accreditation, including surcharges and other
fees not specified under the provisions of Republic Act Numbered Four Hundred Sixty
Five as amended by Republic Act Numbered Sixty Five Hundred and Eleven or to
charge and collect reasonable fees at the rates higher than the rates provided
thereunder subject to the approval by the Office of the President.

(h) To appoint subject to the Civil Service laws, rules, and regulations, officials and
employees of the Commission necessary for the effective performance of its functions
and responsibilities; prescribe their duties and fix their compensation subject to the
provisions of Republic Act Numbered Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Eight and
allowances including other fringe benefits; and to assign and/or reassign personnel as
the exigency of the service requires subject to the Civil Service laws, rules and
regulations; and to organize or reorganize the structure of the Commission; and create
or abolish positions or change the designation of existing positions in accordance with a
staffing pattern prepared by it and approved by the Office of the President upon the
recommendation of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to meet the
changing conditions or as the need arises: Provided, That, such changes shall not affect
the employment status of the incumbents, reduce their ranks and/or salaries nor shall
result in their separation from the service;
(i) To submit and recommend to the President of the Philippines the names of
licensed/registered professionals for appointment as members of the various
Professional Regulatory Boards from among those nominated to fill up vacancies
pursuant to the provisions of Executive Order No. 496, Series of 1991;

(j) Upon recommendation of the Professional Regulatory Board concerned, to approve

the registration of and authorize the issuance of a certificate of registration/license and
professional identification card with or without examination to a foreigner who is
registered under the laws of his state or country and whose certificate of registration
issued therein has not been suspended or revoked: Provided, That, the requirements for
the registration or licensing in said foreign state or country are substantially the same as
those required and contemplated by the laws of the Philippines and that the laws of such
foreign state or country allow the citizens of the Philippines to practice the profession on
the same basis and grant the same privileges as those enjoyed by the subjects or
citizens of such foreign state or country: Provided, further, That, the Commission may,
upon recommendation of the Board concerned, authorize the issuance of a certificate of
registration/license or a special temporary permit to foreign professionals who desire to
practice their professions in the country under reciprocity and other international
agreements; consultants in foreign-funded, joint venture or foreign-assisted projects of
the government, employees of Philippine or foreign private firms or institutions pursuant
to law, or health professionals engaged in humanitarian mission for a limited period of
time: Provided, finally, That agencies, organizations or individuals whether public or
private, who secure he services of a foreign professional authorized by law to practice in
the Philippines for reasons aforementioned, shall be responsible for securing a special
permit from the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) and the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE), pursuant to PRC and DOLE rules:

(k) To authorize any officer of the Commission to administer oaths:

(l) To supervise foreign nations who are authorized by existing laws to practice their
professions either as holders of a certificate of registration and a professional
identification card or a temporary special permit in the Philippines; to ensue that the
terms and conditions for their practice or of their employment are strictly complied with;
to require the hiring or employing government agency or private entity/institution to
secure a temporary special permit from the concerned Board subject to approval by the
Commission and to file a criminal complaint against the head of the government agency
or officers of the said private entity/institution, who shall be liable under the penalty
provided for in the concerned professional regulatory law or the penalty imposed
pursuant to this Act, when the professional was hired and allowed to practice his/her
profession without permit; to file upon due process request for deportation with the
Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID); and to supervise professionals who were
former citizens of the Philippines and who had been registered and issued a certificate of
registration and a professional identification card prior to their naturalization as foreign
citizens, who may, while in the country on a visit, sojourn or permanent residence,
practice their profession: Provided, That, prior to the practice of their profession they
shall have first been issued a special permit and updated professional identification card
by the Board concerned subject to approval by the Commission and upon payment of
the permit and annual registration fees;
(m) To monitor the performance of schools in licensure examinations and publish the
results thereof in a newspaper of national circulation;

(n) To adopt and institute a comprehensive rating system for universities, colleges, and
training institutes based on the passing ratio and overall performance of students in
board examinations;

(o) To exercise administrative supervision over the various professional regulatory

boards and its members;

(p) To adopt and promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to
effectively implement policies with respect to the regulation and practice of the
professions;

(q) To implement the program for the full computerization of all licensure examinations
given by the various professional regulatory boards including the registration of
professionals not later than the year 2003 and other operations of the Commission;

(r) To investigate and decide administrative matters involving officers and employees
under the jurisdiction of the Commission;

(s) To investigate motu proprio or upon the filing of a verified complaint, any member of
the Professional Regulatory Boards for neglect of duty, incompetence, unprofessional,
unethical, immoral or dishonorable conduct, commission of irregularities in the licensure
examinations which taint or impugn the integrity and authenticity of the results of the said
examinations and, if found guilty, to revoke or suspend their certificates of registration
and professional licenses/identification cards and to recommend to the President of the
Philippines their suspension or removal from office as the case may be;

(t) To issue summons, subpoena and subpoena duces tecum in connection with the
investigation of cases against officials and employees of the Commission and the
members of the Professional Regulatory Boards;

(u) To hold in contempt in erring party or person only upon application with a court of
competent jurisdiction;

(v) To call upon or request any department, instrumentality, office, bureau, institution or
agency of the government including local government units to render such assistance as
it may require, or to coordinate or cooperate in order to carry out, enforce or implement
the professional regulatory policies of the government or any program or activity it may
undertake pursuant to the provisions of this Act;

(w) To initiate an investigation, upon complaint under oath by an aggrieved party, of any
person, whether a private individual or professional, local or foreign, who practices the
regulated profession or occupation without being authorized by law, or without being
registered with and licensed by the concerned regulatory board and issued the
corresponding license/professional identification card or temporary or special permit, or
who commits any of the prohibited acts provided in the regulatory laws of the various
professions, which acts are criminal in nature, and if the evidence so warrants, to
forward the records of the case to the office of the city or provincial prosecutor for the
 filing of the corresponding information in court by the lawyers of the legal services of the
Commission who may prosecute said case/s upon being deputized by the Secretary of
Justice;

(x) To prepare an annual report of accomplishments on the programs, projects and

activities of the Commission during the year for submission to Congress after the close
of its calendar year and make appropriate recommendations on issues and/or problems
affecting the Commission, the Professional Regulatory Board, and the various
professions under its jurisdiction; and

(y) To perform such other functions and duties as may be necessary to carry out the
provisions of this Act, the various professional regulatory laws, decrees, executive
orders and other administrative issuance.

Section 8. Regional Offices – The Commission is hereby authorized to create regional offices
as may be necessary to carry out their functions mandated under this Act.

Section 9. Powers, Functions and Responsibilities of the Various Professional Regulatory

Boards – The various, professional regulatory boards shall retain the following powers, functions
and responsibilities:

(a) To regulate the practice of the professions in accordance with the provisions of their
respective professional regulatory laws;

(b) To monitor the conditions affecting the practice of the profession or occupation under
their respective jurisdictions and whenever necessary, adopt such measures as may be
deemed proper for the enhancement of the profession or occupation and/or the
maintenance of high professional, ethical and technical standards, and for this purpose
the members of the Board duly authorized by the Commission with deputized employees
of the Commission, may conduct ocular inspection in industrial, mechanical, electrical or
chemical plants or establishments, hospitals, clinics, laboratories, testing facilities, mines
and quarries, other engineering facilities and in the case of schools, in coordination with
the Commission on Higher Education (CHED);

(c) To hear and investigate cases arising from violations of their respective laws, the
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder and their Codes of Ethics and, for this
purpose, may issue summons, subpoena and subpoena duces tecum to alleged
violators and/or witnesses to compel their attendance in such investigations or
hearings: Provided, That, the decision of the Professional Regulatory Board shall, unless
appealed to the Commission, become final and executory after fifteen (15) days from
receipt of notice of judgment or decision;

(d) To delegate the hearing or investigation of administrative cases filed before them
except in cases where the issue or question involved strictly concerns the practice of the
profession or occupation, in which case, the hearing shall be presided over by at least
one (1) member of the Board concerned assisted by a Legal or Hearing Officer of the
Commission;

(e) To conduct, through the Legal Officers of the Commission, summary proceedings on
minor violations of their respective regulatory laws, violations of the rules and regulations
 issued by the boards to implement their respective laws, including violations of the
general instructions to examinees committed by examinees, and render summary
judgment thereon which shall, unless appealed to the Commission, become final and
executory after fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice of judgment or decision;

(f) Subject to final approval by the Commission, to recommend registration without

examination and the issuance of corresponding certificate of registration and
professional identification card;

(g) After due process, to suspend, revoke or reissue, reinstate certificate of registration
or licenses for causes provided by law;

(h) To prepare, adopt and issue the syllabi or tables of specifications of the subjects for
examinations in consultation with the academe; determine and prepare the questions for
the licensure examinations which shall strictly be within the scope of the syllabus or table
of specifications of the subject for examination; score and rate the examination papers
with the name and signature of the Board member concerned appearing thereon and
submit the results in all subjects duly signed by the members of the Board to the
Commission within ten (10) days from the last day of examination unless extended by
the Commission for justifiable cause/s; and subject to the approval by the Commission,
determine the appropriate passing general average rating in an examination if not
provided for in the law regulating the profession; and

(i) To prepare an annual report of accomplishments on programs, projects and activities

of the Board during the year for submission to the Commission after the close of each
calendar year and make appropriate recommendations on issues or problems affecting
the profession to the Commission.

Section 10. Compensation of the Members of the Professional Regulatory Boards – The
members of the Professional Regulatory Boards shall receive compensation equivalent to, at
least, two salary grades lower than the salary grade of the Commissioners: Provided, That the
Chairperson of the Regulatory Board shall receive a monthly compensation of two steps higher
than the members of the Board, and: Provided, further, That they shall be entitled to other
allowances and benefits provided under existing laws.

Section 11. Person to Teach Subjects for Licensure Examination on all Professions – All
subjects for licensure examinations shall be taught by persons who are holders of valid
certificates of registration and valid professional licenses of the profession and who comply with
the other requirements of the CHED.

Section 12. Assistance of Law Enforcement Agency – Any law enforcement agency shall, upon
call or request of the Commission or of any Professional Regulatory Board, render assistance in
enforcing the regulatory law of the profession including the rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder by prosecuting the violators thereof in accordance with law and the rules of court.

Section 13. Appropriations – The amount necessary to carry out the initial implementation of
this Act shall be charged against the current year’s appropriations of the Professional
Regulation Commission. Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary for the continued
implementation of this Act shall be included in the succeeding General Appropriations Act.
Section 14. Authority to Use Income – In addition to the annual appropriations of the
Commission provided under the Annual General Appropriations Act, the Commission is hereby
authorized to use its income not exceeding the amount of Forty-five million pesos
(P45,000,000.00) a year for a period of five (5) years after the effectivity of this Act to implement
the program for full computerization of the operations of the Commission, subject to the usual
accounting and auditing requirements.

Section 15. Penalties for Manipulation and Other Corrupt Practices in the Conduct of
Professional Examinations –

(a) Any person who manipulates or rigs licensure examination results, secretly informs
or makes known licensure examination questions prior to the conduct of the examination
or tampers with the grades in professional licensure examinations shall, upon conviction,
be punished by imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day to not more
than twelve (12) years or a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to not
more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or both such imprisonment and
fine at the discretion of the court.

(b) In case the offender is an officer or employee of the Commission or a member of the
regulatory board, he/she shall be removed from office and shall suffer the penalty of
perpetual absolute disqualification from public office to addition to the penalties
prescribed in the preceding section of this Act;

(c) The penalty of imprisonment ranging from four (4) years and one (1) day to six (6)
years or a fine ranging from Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) to not more than
Forty-nine thousand pesos (P49,000.00), or both imprisonment and fine at the discretion
of the court, shall be imposed upon the accomplices. The penalty of imprisonment
ranging from two (2) years and one (1) day to four (4) years or a fine ranging from Five
thousand pesos (P5,000.00) to not more than Nineteen thousand pesos (P19,000.00), or
both imprisonment and fine at the discretion of the court, shall be imposed upon the
accessories.

Section 16. Penalties for Violation of Section 7 – Subparagraph (1) by Heads of Government
Agencies or Officers of Private Entities/Institutions – Any head of a government agency or
officer(s) of a private firm/institution who violates Section 7 – subpar. (1) of this Act shall be
punished by imprisonment of not less than six (6) months and one (1) day to not more than six
(6) years, or a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to not more than Five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) or both at the discretion of the court.

Section 17. Implementing Rules and Regulations – Within ninety (90) days after the approval of
this Act, the Professional Regulation Commission, together with representatives of the various
Professional Regulatory Boards and accredited professional organizations, the DBM, and the
CHED shall prepare and promulgate the necessary rules and regulations needed to implement
the provisions of this Act.

Section 18. Transitory Provisions – The incumbent Commissioner and two (2) incumbent
Associate Commissioners shall serve as Chairperson and Commissioners respectively under
the terms for which they have been appointed without need of new appointments. The
incumbent Executive Director shall likewise serve as Assistant Commissioner without need of
new appointment.
Section 19. Separability Clause – If any provision of this Act or the application of such provision
to any person or circumstances is declared invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act
or application of such provisions to other persons or circumstance shall not be affected by such
declaration.

Section 20. Repealing Clause – Republic Act. No. 546, Presidential Decree No. 223, as
amended by Presidential Decree No. 657, Republic Act No. 5181, and Executive Order No. 266,
Series of 1995 are hereby repealed. Section 23 (h) of Republic Act No. 7836, Section 4 (m & s).
Section 23 of Republic Act No. 7920, and Section 29 of Republic Act No. 8050, insofar as it
requires completion of the requirements of the Continuing Professional Education (CPE) as a
condition for the renewal of the license are hereby repealed. All other laws, orders, rules and
regulations or resolutions and all part/s thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are
hereby repealed or amended accordingly.

Section 21. Effectivity – This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following its publication
in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general circulation, whichever is earlier.

Approved: December 05, 2000

(Sgd.)JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA

President of the Philippines
 Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

BOARD OF MEDICINE, G.R. No. 166097

DR. RAUL FLORES
(now DR. JOSE S. RAMIREZ), Present:
in his capacity as Chairman of the
Board, PROFESSIONAL QUISUMBING,* J.,
REGULATION COMMISSION, YNARES-SANTIAGO,
through its Chairman, Chairperson,
HERMOGENES POBRE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
(now DR. ALCESTIS M. GUIANG), NACHURA, and
Petitioners, REYES, JJ.

-versus-

Promulgated:
YASUYUKI OTA, July 14, 2008
Respondent.
x -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- x

DECISION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 84945[2] dated November 16, 2004 which affirmed the Decision[3] of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 22, Manila, dated October 19, 2003.[4]

The facts are as follows:

Yasuyuki Ota (respondent) is a Japanese national, married to a Filipina, who has continuously resided in
the Philippines for more than 10 years. He graduated from BicolChristian College of Medicine on April 21,
1991 with a degree of Doctor of Medicine.[5] After successfully completing a one-year post graduate
internship training at the JoseReyes Memorial Medical Center, he filed an application to take the medical
board examinations in order to obtain a medical license. He was required by the Professional Regulation
Commission (PRC) to submit an affidavit of undertaking, stating among others that should he successfully
pass the same, he would not practice medicine until he submits proof that reciprocity exists between Japan
and the Philippines in admitting foreigners into the practice of medicine.[6]
Respondent submitted a duly notarized English translation of the Medical Practitioners Law of Japan duly
authenticated by the Consul General of the Philippine Embassy to Japan, Jesus I. Yabes;[7] thus, he was
allowed to take the Medical Board Examinations in August 1992, which he subsequently passed.[8]

In spite of all these, the Board of Medicine (Board) of the PRC, in a letter dated March 8,
1993, denied respondent's request for a license to

practice medicine in the Philippines on the ground that the Board believes that no genuine reciprocity can
be found in the law of Japan as there is no Filipino or foreigner who can possibly practice there.[9]

Respondent then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus against the Board before the RTC of Manila
on June 24, 1993, which petition was amended on February 14, 1994to implead the PRC through its
Chairman.[10]

In his petition before the RTC, respondent alleged that the Board and the PRC, in refusing to issue in his
favor a Certificate of Registration and/or license to practice medicine, had acted arbitrarily, in clear
contravention of the provision of Section 20 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 2382 (The Medical Act of 1959),
depriving him of his legitimate right to practice his profession in the Philippines to his great damage and
prejudice.[11]

On October 19, 2003, the RTC rendered its Decision finding that respondent had adequately proved that
the medical laws of Japan allow foreigners like Filipinos to be granted license and be admitted into the
practice of medicine under the principle of reciprocity; and that the Board had a ministerial duty of issuing
the Certificate of Registration and license to respondent, as it was shown that he had substantially complied
with the requirements under the law.[12] The RTC then ordered the Board to issue in favor of respondent the
corresponding Certificate of Registration and/or license to practice medicine in the Philippines.[13]
The Board and the PRC (petitioners) appealed the case to the CA, stating that while respondent submitted
documents showing that foreigners are allowed to practice medicine in Japan, it was not shown that the
conditions for the practice of medicine there are practical and attainable by a foreign applicant, hence,
reciprocity was not established; also, the power of the PRC and the Board to regulate and control the
practice of medicine is discretionary and not ministerial, hence, not compellable by a writ of mandamus.[14]

The CA denied the appeal and affirmed the ruling of the RTC.[15]

Hence, herein petition raising the following issue:

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN

FINDING THAT RESPONDENT HAD ESTABLISHED THE EXISTENCE OF
 RECIPROCITY IN THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE BETWEEN
THE PHILIPPINES AND JAPAN.[16]
Petitioners claim that: respondent has not established by competent and conclusive evidence that reciprocity
in the practice of medicine exists between the Philippines and Japan. While documents state that foreigners
are allowed to practice medicine in Japan, they do not similarly show that the conditions for the practice of
medicine in said country are practical and attainable by a foreign applicant. There is no reciprocity in this
case, as the requirements to practice medicine in Japan are practically impossible for a Filipino to comply
with. There are also ambiguities in the Medical Practitioners Law of Japan, which were not clarified by
respondent, i.e., what are the provisions of the School Educations Laws, what are the criteria of the Minister
of Health and Welfare of Japan in determining whether the academic and technical capability of foreign
medical graduates are the same or better than graduates of medical schools in Japan, and who can actually
qualify to take the preparatory test for the National Medical Examination. Consul General Yabes also stated
that there had not been a single Filipino who was issued a license to practice medicine by the Japanese
Government. The publication showing that there were foreigners practicing medicine in Japan, which
respondent presented before the Court, also did not specifically show that Filipinos were among those listed
as practicing said profession.[17]Furthermore, under Professional Regulation Commission v. De
Guzman,[18] the power of the PRC and the Board to regulate and control the practice of medicine includes
the power to regulate admission to the ranks of those authorized to practice medicine, which power is
discretionary and not ministerial, hence, not compellable by a writ of mandamus.[19]
Petitioners pray that the CA Decision dated November 16, 2004 be reversed and set aside, that a new one
be rendered reinstating the Board Order dated March 8, 1993 which disallows respondent to practice
medicine in the Philippines, and that respondent's petition before the trial court be dismissed for lack of
merit.[20]

In his Comment, respondent argues that: Articles 2 and 11 of the Medical Practitioners Law of Japan and
Section 9 of the Philippine Medical Act of 1959 show that reciprocity exists between
the Philippines and Japan concerning the practice of medicine. Said laws clearly state that both countries
allow foreigners to practice medicine in their respective jurisdictions as long as the applicant meets the
educational requirements, training or residency in hospitals and pass the licensure examination given by
either country. Consul General Yabes in his letter dated January 28, 1992 stated that the Japanese
Government allows a foreigner to practice medicine in Japan after complying with the local requirements.
The fact that there is no reported Filipino who has successfully penetrated the medical practice
in Japan does not mean that there is no reciprocity between the two countries, since it does not follow that
no Filipino will ever be granted a medical license by the Japanese Government. It is not the essence of
reciprocity that before a citizen of one of the contracting countries can demand its application, it is necessary
that the interested citizens country has previously granted the same privilege to the citizens of the other
contracting country.[21] Respondent further argues that Section 20 of the Medical Act of 1959[22] indicates
the mandatory character of the statute and an imperative obligation on the part of the Board inconsistent
with the idea of discretion. Thus, a foreigner, just like a Filipino citizen, who successfully passes the
examination and has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications, is entitled as a matter of right
to the issuance of a certificate of registration or a physicians license, which right is enforceable
by mandamus.[23]

Petitioners filed a Reply[24] and both parties filed their respective memoranda[25] reiterating their arguments.

The Court denies the petition for lack of merit.

There is no question that a license to practice medicine is a privilege or franchise granted by the
government.[26] It is a right that is earned through years of education and training, and which requires that
one must first secure a license from the state through professional board examinations.[27]
Indeed,
[T]he regulation of the practice 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.[28]

It must be stressed however 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 which regulates the exercise of a particular privilege has the authority to both forbid and
grant such privilege in accordance with certain conditions. As 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.[29]

R.A. No. 2382 otherwise known as the Medical Act of 1959 states in Section 9 thereof that:

Section 9. Candidates for Board Examinations.- 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 countrys existing laws permit citizens of the
Philippines to practice medicine under the same rules and regulations governing citizens
thereof;
 xxxx

Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 223[30] also provides in Section (j) thereof that:

j) The [Professional Regulation] Commission may, upon the recommendation of

the Board concerned, approve the registration of and authorize the issuance of a certificate
of registration with or without examination to a foreigner who is registered under the laws
of his country: Provided, That the requirement for the registration or licensing in said
foreign state or country are substantially the same as those required and contemplated by
the laws of the Philippines and that the laws of such foreign state or country allow the
citizens of the Philippines to practice the profession on the same basis and grant the same
privileges as the subject or citizens of such foreign state or country: Provided, finally, That
the applicant shall submit 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 the profession under the rules and regulations governing
citizens thereof. The Commission is also hereby authorized to prescribe additional
requirements or grant certain privileges to foreigners seeking registration in
the Philippines if the same privileges are granted to or some additional requirements are
required of citizens of the Philippines in acquiring the same certificates in his country;

xxxx

As required by the said laws, respondent submitted a copy of the Medical Practitioners Law of
Japan, duly authenticated by the Consul General of the Embassy of the Philippines in Japan, which provides
in Articles 2 and 11, thus:

Article 2. Anyone who wants to be medical practitioner must pass the national
examination for medical practitioner and get license from the Minister of Health and
Welfare.

xxxx

Article 11. No one can take the National Medical Examination except persons who
conform to one of the following items:

1. Persons who finished regular medical courses at a university based on the

School Education Laws (December 26, 1947) and graduated from said
university.

2. Persons who passed the preparatory test for the National Medical
Examination and practiced clinics and public sanitation more than one year
after passing the said test.

3. Persons who graduated from a foreign medical school or acquired medical

practitioner license in a foreign country, and also are recognized to have the
 same or more academic ability and techniques as persons stated in item 1 and
item 2 of this article.[31]

Petitioners argue that while the Medical Practitioners Law of Japan allows foreigners to practice
medicine therein, said document does not show that conditions for the practice of medicine in said country
are practical and attainable by a foreign applicant; and since the requirements are practically
impossible for a Filipino to comply with, there is no reciprocity between the two countries, hence,
respondent may not be granted license to practice medicine in the Philippines.

The Court does not agree.

R.A. No. 2382, which provides who may be candidates for the medical board examinations, merely
requires a foreign citizen to submit competent and conclusive documentary evidence, confirmed by the
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), showing that his countrys existing laws permit citizens of the
Philippines to practice medicine under the same rules and regulations governing citizens thereof.

Section (j) of P.D. No. 223 also defines the extent of PRC's power to grant licenses, i.e., it may,
upon recommendation of the board, approve the registration and authorize the issuance of a certificate of
registration with or without examination to a foreigner who is registered under the laws of his country,
provided the following conditions are met: (1) that the requirement for the registration or licensing in said
foreign state or country are substantially the same as those required and contemplated by the laws of the
Philippines; (2) that the laws of such foreign state or country allow the citizens of the Philippines to practice
the profession on the same basis and grant the same privileges as the subject or citizens of such foreign
state or country; and (3) that the applicant shall submit competent and conclusive documentary evidence,
confirmed by the DFA, showing that his country's existing laws permit citizens of the Philippines to practice
the profession under the rules and regulations governing citizens thereof.

The said provision further states that the PRC is authorized to prescribe additional requirements or
grant certain privileges to foreigners seeking registration in the Philippines if the same privileges are
granted to or some additional requirements are required of citizens of the Philippines in acquiring the same
certificates in his country.

Nowhere in said statutes is it stated that the foreign applicant must show that the conditions for the
practice of medicine in said country are practical and attainable by Filipinos. Neither is it stated that it
must first be proven that a Filipino has been granted license and allowed to practice his profession in said
country before a foreign applicant may be given license to practice in the Philippines. Indeed, the phrase
used in both R.A. No. 2382 and P.D. No. 223 is that:
[T]he applicant shall submit] 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 the profession [of medicine] under the
[same] rules and regulations governing citizens thereof. x x x (Emphasis supplied)

It is enough that the laws in the foreign country permit a Filipino to get license and practice
therein. Requiring respondent to prove first that a Filipino has already been granted license and is actually
practicing therein unduly expands the requirements provided for under R.A. No. 2382 and P.D. No. 223.

While it is true that respondent failed to give details as to the conditions stated in the Medical
Practitioners Law of Japan -- i.e., the provisions of the School Educations Laws, the criteria of the Minister
of Health and Welfare of Japan in determining whether the academic and technical capability of foreign
medical graduates are the same as or better than that of graduates of medical schools in Japan, and who can
actually qualify to take the preparatory test for the National Medical Examination respondent, however,
presented proof that foreigners are actually practicing in Japan and that Filipinos are not precluded from
getting a license to practice there.

Respondent presented before the trial court a Japanese Government publication, Physician-Dentist-
Pharmaceutist Survey, showing that there are a number of foreign physicians practicing medicine
in Japan.[32] He also presented a letter dated January 28, 1992 from Consul General Yabes,[33] which states:

Sir:

With reference to your letter dated 12 January 1993, concerning your request for a
Certificate of Confirmation for the purpose of establishing a reciprocity with Japan in the
practice of medical profession relative to the case of Mr. Yasuyuki Ota, a Japanese national,
the Embassy wishes to inform you that inquiries from the Japanese Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Ministry of Health and Welfare as well as Bureau of Immigration yielded the
following information:

1. They are not aware of a Filipino physician who was granted a license by the
Japanese Government to practice medicine in Japan;
2. However, the Japanese Government allows a foreigner to practice medicine
in Japan after complying with the local requirements such as holding a valid
visa for the purpose of taking the medical board exam, checking the
applicant's qualifications to take the examination, taking the national board
examination in Japanese and filing an application for the issuance of the
medical license.

Accordingly, the Embassy is not aware of a single Filipino physician who was
issued by the Japanese Government a license to practice medicine, because it is
extremely difficult to pass the medical board examination in the Japanese
language. Filipino doctors here are only allowed to work in Japanese hospitals as trainees
under the supervision of a Japanese doctor.On certain occasions, they are allowed to show
their medical skills during seminars for demonstration purposes only. (Emphasis supplied)
 Very truly yours,

Jesus I. Yabes
Minister Counsellor &
Consul General

From said letter, one can see that the Japanese Government allows foreigners to practice medicine
therein provided that the local requirements are complied with, and that it is not the impossibility or the
prohibition against Filipinos that would account for the absence of Filipino physicians holding licenses and
practicing medicine in Japan, but the difficulty of passing the board examination in the Japanese
language. Granting that there is still no Filipino who has been given license to practice medicine in Japan, it
does not mean that no Filipino will ever be able to be given one.

Petitioners next argue that as held in De Guzman, its power to issue licenses is discretionary, hence,
not compellable by mandamus.

The Court finds that the factual circumstances of De Guzman are different from those of the case
at bar; hence, the principle applied therein should be viewed differently in this case. In De Guzman, there
were doubts about the integrity and validity of the test results of the examinees from a particular school
which garnered unusually high scores in the two most difficult subjects. Said doubts called for serious
inquiry concerning the applicants satisfactory compliance with the Board requirements.[34] And as there
was no definite showing that the requirements and conditions to be granted license to practice medicine
had been satisfactorily met, the Court held that the writ of mandamus may not be granted to secure said
privilege without thwarting the legislative will.[35]

Indeed, to be granted the privilege to practice medicine, the applicant must show that he possesses
all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications. It must also appear that he has fully complied with
all the conditions and requirements imposed by the law and the licensing authority.[36]

In De Guzman itself, the Court explained that:

A careful reading of Section 20[37] 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 [PRC] 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 physician's 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 of the Medical Act of 1959.[38]

In this case, there is no doubt as to the competence and qualifications of respondent. He finished
his medical degree from Bicol Christian College of Medicine. He completed a one-year post graduate
internship training at the Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center, a government hospital. Then he passed the
Medical Board Examinations which was given on August 8, 1992 with a general average of 81.83, with
scores higher than 80 in 9 of the 12 subjects.

In fine, the only matter being questioned by petitioners is the alleged failure of respondent to prove
that there is reciprocity between the laws of Japan and the Philippines in admitting foreigners into the
practice of medicine. Respondent has satisfactorily complied with the said requirement and the CA has not
committed any reversible error in rendering its Decision dated November 16, 2004 and Resolution
dated October 19, 2003.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-9651 August 4, 1915

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
DOMINADOR GOMEZ JESUS, defendant-appellant.

Recarado Ma. Calvo for appellant.

Office of the Solicitor-General Corpus for appellee.

JOHNSON, J.:

On the 17th day of July, 1913, C.A. Sobral, assistant prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila,
presented a complaint in the Court of First Instance of said city, charging the defendant with the
crime of practicing medicine without a license, in violation of section 8 of Act No. 310 of the
Philippine Commission. The complaint alleged:

That in, during, and between the months of January, 1911 and June, 1913, in the city of
Manila, Philippine Islands, the said Dominador Gomez Jesus having been suspended
from the practice of medicine on or about August 28, 1909, by the Board of Medical
Examiners, in accordance with the provisions of section 8 of said Act No. 310, and while
his license as a physician and surgeon was revoked by the said Board of Medical
Examiners, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously treat, operate upon,
prescribe, and advise for the physical ailments of one Margarita Dolores and other
persons, for a fee, and presented himself by means of signs, cards, advertisements, and
otherwise as a physician and surgeon, duly admitted, empowered, and allowed to
practice medicine, in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, when in truth and in fact as
the said Dominador Gomez Jesus well knew, he was not allowed to practice medicine in
any way in the city of Manila, or anywhere in the Philippine Islands, for a fee, and when,
as he well knew, the rendering of medical and surgical services by him to the said
Margarita Dolores and other persons in the city of Manila was for a fee, and not in a
case of emergency, or in the administration of family remedies, or through a call in
consultation with other duly admitted physicians or surgeons."

On the 22nd day of July, 1913, the defendant appeared and demurred to the complaint, upon
the following grounds: (1) That the complaint was not in the form required by law; (2) that the
facts in said complaint did not constitute a crime; (3) that the complaint itself contains
allegations which in truth would constitute a justification or legal exemption for the accused."

After hearing the arguments for the defense and the prosecution on said demurrer, the
Honorable Jose C. Abreu, in very interesting opinion in which he discusses fully said demurrer,
reached the conclusion that the complaint was sufficient, and overruled said demurrer.
On the 26th day of August, 1913, the defendant was duly arraigned and pleaded not guilty. The
cause was brought on for trial before the Honorable George N. Hurd, on the 9th of September,
1913.

After hearing the evidence, the said judge, in a very interesting and well-reasoned opinion,
found the defendant guilty as charged in the complaint, and sentenced him to pay a fine of
P200, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of failure to pay the same or any part thereof, and to
pay the costs. From that sentence the defendant appealed to this court and made the following
assignments of error:

I. The court erred in declaring that the provisions of section 8 of Act No. 310 are not in
conflict with the provisions of the Philippine Bill enacted by the Congress of the United
States on July 1, 1902.

II. The court likewise erred in declaring to be valid and effective that portion of section 8
of Act No. 310 which empowers the Board of Medical Examiners to revoke the certificate
of a physician who may have been convicted of any offense involving immoral or
dishonorable conduct or for unprofessional conduct.

III. The court likewise erred in considering to be final the decision of the Board of Medical
Examiners revoking the certificate of the herein defendant, notwithstanding the appeal
carried to the Board of Health and not yet heard and finally decided thereby as section 8
of Act No. 310 provides.

IV. The court also erred in sustaining the objection of the prosecution to the evidence
adduced by the defense tending to demonstrate that the defendant's certificate as doctor
of medicine represents a value greater than P600.

V. The court likewise erred in holding that the "Hotel Quirurgico" is Doctor Gomez
himself and that such institution exists only to cloak the violation of the law by the
defendant.

VI. The court erred, finally, in sentencing the defendant to pay a fine of P200 or, in
default thereof, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment and to pay the costs of the trial.

The facts disclosed by the record are as follows:

1. That some time prior to the 28th day of August, 1909, the defendant had been admitted, or
had been licensed to practiced medicine in the Philippine Islands.

2. That some time prior to the said 28th day of August, 1909, the defendant had been accused,
arrested, tried, and found guilty of a violation of the Opium Law.

3. That in the month of August, 1909, the defendant was cited to appear before the "Board of
Medical Examiners for the Philippine Islands," to show cause why his license to practice
medicine should not be revoked, in accordance with the provisions of section 8 of Act No. 310.
4. That on the date set, the Board proceeded to make an investigation of the question of the
revocation of the license of the defendant to practice medicine, based upon the fact that he had
been theretofore convicted of an "offense involving immoral or dishonorable conduct."

5. That after the conclusion of said investigation, the Board reached the conclusion (a) that the
defendant had been guilty of an "offensive involving immoral or dishonorable conduct;" and (b)
adopted a resolution revoking his license to practice medicine.

6. That the defendant was duly notified of the action of said Board.

7. That later the defendant appealed to the Director of Health, which appeal was finally
withdrawn by him.

8. That later, and after the license of the defendant to practice medicine had been revoked, he
did practice medicine in the Philippine Islands by treating, operating upon, prescribing he
charged a fee, and that said treating, operating, and prescribing medicine for said various
persons were not in cases of emergency, or in the administration of family remedies.

9. That the defendant is not a medical officer of the United States Army, the United States Navy,
the United States Marine Hospital Service, nor a physician or surgeon from other countries
called in consultation, nor a medical student, practicing medicine under the direct supervision of
a preceptor who is a registered doctor of medicine.

Upon the foregoing facts, the lower court imposed the fine indicated above.

The appellant, in support of his first assignment of error, argues that section 8 of said Act No.
310 is in conflict with the provisions of the Philippine Bill (Act of Congress of July 1, 1902), and
is, therefore, void. Act No. 310, among other things, provides:

1. (a) For the creation of "A Board of Medical Examiners for the Philippine Islands." (b) That said
Board shall examine candidates desiring to practice medicine in the Philippine Islands, and to
issue a certificate of registration to such persons who are found to be qualified, in accordance
with the provisions of said law, to practice medicine, etc.

2. That after the 1st of March, 1902, it shall be unlawful for any person to practice medicine,
surgery, etc., in any of its branches in the Philippine Islands, unless he hold such certificate of
registration.

3. That said Board of Medical Examiners may refuse to issue such certificate of registration to
any individual convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction of any offense involving immoral or
dishonorable conduct.

4. That said Board might revoke any certificate of registration theretofore granted to any person
in case he should be convicted of any offense involving immoral or dishonorable conduct, or for
unprofessional conduct.

5. That any person shall be regarded as practicing medicine, who shall treat, operate upon,
prescribe, or advise for any physical ailment of another for a fee, or who shall represent himself,
by means of signs, cards, advertisements, or otherwise, as a physician or surgeon.
6. That said law did not apply to the rendering of services in case of emergency or the
administration of family remedies, or to medical officers of the United States Army, of the United
States Navy, or of the United States Marine Hospital Service, or to a physician or surgeon of
other countries called in consultation, or to a medical student, practicing under the supervision
of a preceptor who is a registered doctor of medicine.

It is the power of the Board of Medical Examiners to revoke a license, once granted, to which
the appellant especially directs his argument, in support of his contention that said Act is in
conflict with the said Act of Congress.

Section 8 of Act No. 310 provides: "The Board of Medical Examiners may refuse to issue any of
the certificates provided for therein [in this Act] to an individual convicted by a court of
competent jurisdiction of any offense involving immoral or dishonorable conduct. In case of such
refusal, the reason therefor shall be stated to the applicant in writing. The Board may also
revoke any such certificate for like cause, or for unprofessional conduct, after due notice to the
person holding the certificate, and a hearing, subject to an appeal to the Board of Health for the
Philippine Islands, the decision of which shall be final."

That part of the Act of Congress upon which the appellant relies to show that Act No. 310 is void
is paragraph 1 of section 5. Said paragraph reads as follows: "That no law shall be enacted in
said Islands which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law, or deny to any person therein the equal protection of the laws."

The appellants gives three reasons why section 8 of Act No. 310 is void. They are: (a) That the
provisions of section 8 of Act No. 310 deprive the herein defendant of his rights or property
without due process of law. (b) That the power to revoke the certificate of a doctor of medicine
resides solely in the Courts of First Instance and the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands.
(c) That the power granted to the Board of Medical Examiners to revoke the certificate of a
physician has been repealed by section 88 of the Philippine Bill.

While the assignments of error present various questions, the real questions presented are
three:

1. The right of the state to require of those who desire to practice medicine and surgery, etc.,
certain standards of morality and general and special scholarship, as a prerequisite said
professions.

2. The right of the state to revoke such a license, once granted; and

3. The right of the state to punish, by fine or imprisonment, or both, those attempt to practice the
professions of medicine, surgery, etc., without a license, and in violation of the law.

The appellant argues, in support of his right assignment of error:

1. That section 8 of Act No. 310 is null and void because it deprives him of a right or of property,
without due process of law;

2. That the Board of Medical Examiners had no authority or right to revoke his license; that right,
if any exists of all, belongs to the courts, and
3. That said section 8 has been repealed by section 88 of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902
(The Philippine Bill).

Generally speaking, with reference to the general and inherent power of the state, we think the
following propositions are so well established that they no longer admit of dispute or discussion:

1. The state has general power to enact such laws, in relation to persons and property within its
borders, as may promote public health, public morals, public safety, and the general prosperity
and welfare of its inhabitants. (New York City vs. Miln, 11 Pet. (U.S.), 102, 139; Passenger
Cases, 7 How. (U.S.), 283, 423; Slaughterhouse House Cases, 16 Wall., 36, 62; Beer
Co. vs. Mass., 97 U.S., 25; Mugler vs. Kansas, 123 U.S., 623; Dent vs. W. Virginia, 129 U.S.,
114 (25 W. Va., 1); Hawker vs. N.Y., 170 U.S., 189; Case vs. .Board of Health, 24 Phil. Rep.,
250.)

2. To make reasonable provision for determining the qualifications of those engaging in the
practice of medicine and surgery, and punishing those who attempt to engage therein in
defiance of such provisions. (Dent vs. W. Virginia, 129 U.S., 114 (25 W. Va., 1);
Hawker vs. N.Y., 170 U.S., 189; Reetz vs. Michigan, 188 U.S., 505; State vs. Webster, 150 Ind.,
607.)

This power of the state is generally denominated the police power. It has been held that the
state cannot be deprived of its right to exercise this power. The police power and the right to
exercise its constitute the very foundation, or at least one of the corner stones, of the state. For
the state to deprive itself or permit itself to be deprived of the right to enact laws to promote the
general prosperity and welfare of its inhabitants, and promote public health, public morals, and
public safety, would be to destroy the very purpose and objects of the state. No legislature can
bargain away the public health, public safety, or the public morals. The people themselves
cannot do it, much less their servants. Governments are organized with a view to the
preservation of these things. They cannot deprive themselves of the power to provide for them.
(Stone vs. Mississippi, 101 U.S., 814, 816.)

It has been held that a constitutional prohibition upon State laws impairing the obligation of
contracts does not restrict the power of the State to protect the public health, public morals, or
public safety, as the one or the other may be involved in the execution of such contracts. Rights
and privileges arising from contracts with a State are subject to regulations for the protection of
the public health, the public morals, and the public safety, in the same sense and to the same
extent as are all contracts and all property, whether owned by natural persons or
corporations. (New Orleans Gas Light Co. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U.S., 650, 672.)

In order to enforce the police power of the state, it may, under certain conditions, become
necessary to deprive its citizens of property and of a right providing for the continuance of
property, when the property or the exercise of the right may tend to destroy the public health,
the public morals, the public safety, and the general welfare and prosperity of its inhabitants. For
example, a tannery, a slaughterhouse, or a fertilizing establishment may be located in such
proximity to the residence portion of a city as to become a menace to the public health and the
welfare of the inhabitants. In such a case the discontinuance or the removal of such institutions
may be ordered, under the police power of the state, even though it amounts to depriving
persons of their private property. (Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wal., 36, 62; Fertilizing
co. vs. Hyde Park, 97 U.S., 659.)
Mr. Chancellor Kent, in his valuable commentaries, in discussing the police power (2 Kent's
Commentaries, 340) says: "Unwholesome trades, slaughterhouses, operations offensive to the
senses, the deposit of powder, the application of steam power to the propelling of cars, the
building with combustible materials, and the burial of the dead may all be interdicted by law, in
the midst of dense masses of population, on the general and rational principle that every person
ought so to use his property as not to injure his neighbors, and that private interests must be
made subservient to the general interest of the community."

This power is called the police power of the state. (Commonwealth vs. Alger, 7 Cush. (Mass.),
53, 84.) The police power is so extensive and so comprehensive that the courts have refused to
give it an exact definition; neither have they attempted to define its limitations. Upon the police
power of the state depends the security of social order, the life and health of the citizens, the
comfort of an existence in a thickly populated community, the enjoyment of private and social
life, and the beneficial use of property. It extends to the protection of the lives, limbs, health,
comfort, and quiet of all persons and the protection of all property within the state. Persons and
property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general
comfort, health, and prosperity of the state. (Thorpe vs.Rutland & B.R. Co., 27 Vt., 140, 149;
New York City vs. Miln, 11 Pet. (U.S.), 102; Slaughter House Cases, 16, Wall., 36, 62.)

Neither will it be denied that the owner of a building, which, by reason of its decayed condition,
becomes a menace to public safety, may be ordered to destroy the same, and thus be deprived
of his property. He may be ordered to repair or destroy it. Private property, under the police
power, may be destroyed to prevent the spread of a conflagration in order to save lives and
property. The existence of bawdy houses which tends to greatly affect the morals of the people
of a community may be destroyed or may be removed. A manufacturing plant, so located in a
thickly settled community as to greatly disturb the peace and comfort of the inhabitants, may be
ordered closed or removed. The state, under its police power, may regulate or prohibit the
manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage within its borders. Such a law may
destroy the established business of thousands of its inhabitants. (Mugler vs. Kansas, 123 U.S.,
623; License Cases, 5 How., 504.) If any state deems that the retailing or trafficking in ardent
spirits is injurious to its citizens and calculated to produce idleness, vice, or debauchery, there is
nothing in the Constitution of the United States to prevent it from regulating and restricting such
traffic, or from prohibiting it altogether, if it think proper. The state may even declare that
buildings where intoxicating liquors are distilled or sold shall be a nuisance and ordered
destroyed. (Mugler vs. Kansas, 123 U.S., 623.) The state may regulate its domestic commerce,
contracts, the transmission of estates, real and personal, and act upon all internal matters which
relate to its moral and political welfare. Over these subjects federal governments exercise no
power. The acknowledged police power of the state extends even to the destruction of property.
A nuisance may be abated. Everything prejudicial to the health or morals of a city may be
removed. (Licenses Cases, 5 How., 504; Beer Co. vs. Mass., 97 U.S., 25, 33;
Foster vs. Kansas, 112 U.S., 201, 206; Case vs. Board of Health, 24 Phil. Rep., 250;
Mugler vs.Kansas, 123 U.S., 623.)

The police power of state extends to the protection of the lives, limbs, health, comfort, and quiet
of all persons, and the protection of all property within its borders. Under the general police
power of the state, persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restrictions and burdens in
order to secure the general health, comfort, and prosperity of all. This power, or the right to
exercise it, as need may require, cannot be bargained away by the state. (Case vs.Board of
Health, supra.) Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act
according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the
quiet enjoyment of the same right by others. (Case vs. Board of Health, supra;
Holden vs. Hardy, 169 U.S., 366, 395.)

It is as much for the interest of the state that public health should be preserved as that life
should be made secure. With this end in view, quarantine laws have been enacted in most, if
not all, civilized states. Insane asylums, public hospitals, institutions for the care and education
of the blind have been established, and special measures taken for the exclusion of infected
cattle, rags, and decayed fruit. States have enacted laws limiting the hours during which women
and children shall be employed in factories. (Case vs. Board of Health, supra.)

The present is not the first case which has been presented to the courts relating to the right of
the state to regulate the practice of medicine and surgery, and to define the conditions under
which such practice may be continued and to revoke the license granted to exercise such
professions. Legislation or statutory regulations, similar to the one which we are now discussing,
have been adopted in practically every one of the States of the Union. The constitutionality of
such legislation has been questioned in practically all of States where such legislation exists.
Such statutes have been uniformly sustained. (State vs. Webster, 150 Ind., 607, 616;
Dent vs. W. Virginia, 25 W .Va., 1 (129 U.S., 114); Ex parte Frazer, 54 Cal., 94;
Harding vs. People, 10 Colo., 387; People vs. Blue Mountain Joe, 129 Ill., 370;
State vs. Mosher, 78 Iowa, 321; Iowa Eclectic Medical College vs. Schrader, 87 Iowa, 659 (20
L.R.A., 355); Driscoll vs. Commonwealth, 93 Ky., 393; Hewitt vs. Charier, 16 Pick. (Mass.), 353;
Reetz vs. Michigan, 188 U.S., 505; People vs. Phippin, 70 Mich., 6; State vs. State Medical
Examining Board, 32 Minn., 324; State vs.Fleischer, 41 Minn., 69; State vs. District Court, 13
Mont., 370; Gee Wo vs. State, 36 Neb., 241; State vs. Van Doran, 109 N.C., 864;
State vs. Randolph, 23 Ore., 74.)

The constitutionality of similar legislation, regulating the practice of dentistry, has been
presented in many of the States, and has been sustained. (Wilkins vs. State, 113 Ind., 514;
Gosnel vs. State, 52 Ark., 228; State vs.Vanderluis, 42 Minn., 129; State vs. Creditor, 44
Kansas, 565.)

So also have similar statutory regulations been sustained affecting the practice of pharmacy.
(Hildreth vs. Crawford, 65 Iowa, 339; People vs. Moorman, 86 Mich., 433; State vs. Forcier, 65
N.H., 42.)

Various States have attempted to regulate by statute the trade of plumbing, of horseshoeing, as
well as that of engineering. Even the trade of barbering is subject to statutory regulation in some
States, because it has relation to the health of the people. (Singer vs. State, 72 Md., 464;
People vs. Warden, 144 N.Y., 529; Smith vs. Alabama, 124 U.S., 465.)

Legislation analogous to that under discussion has also been adopted in various States relating
to the practice of the profession of law. The constitutionality of such legislation has been
uniformly sustained. (State vs. Gazlay, 5 Ohio, 14; Goldwaite vs. City Council, 50 Ala., 486;
Cohen vs. Wright, 22 Cal., 293; Ex parte Yale, 24 Cal., 241.)

In every case where the constitutionality of similar statutes has been questioned, it has been
held that it is within the power of the legislature to prescribe the qualifications for the practice of
professions or trades which affect the public welfare, the public health, the public morals, and
the public safety, and to regulate or control such professions or trades, even to the point of
revoking such right altogether.
The trade of plumbing vitally affects the health of the people. The lives of thousands of people
may depend upon the result of the work of an engineer. The property and life of citizens of the
state may depend upon the advice of a lawyer, and no profession or trade is more directly
connected with the health and comfort of the people than that of a physician and surgeon. The
practice of medicine and surgery is a vocation which very nearly concerns the comfort, health,
and life of every person in the land. Physicians and surgeons have committed to their care most
important interests, and it is of almost imperious necessity that only persons possessing skill
and knowledge shall be permitted to practice medicine and surgery. For centuries the law has
required physicians to possess and exercise skill and learning. Courts have not hesitated to
punish those who have caused damages for lack of such skill and learning. The requirement of
the Philippine Legislature that those who may engage in such professions shall be possessed of
both knowledge and skill before entering the same is no new principle of law. It is an exercise of
the right of the state, under its police power, which has been recognized for centuries. No one
can doubt the great importance to the community that health, life, and limb should be protected
and not be left in the hands of ignorant pretenders, and that the services of reputable, skilled
and learned men should be secured to them.

In the case of Dent vs. W. Virginia (129 U.S., 114), the late Mr. Justice Field, speaking for the
court, said: "It is undoubtedly the right of every citizen [of the United States] to follow any lawful
calling, business, or profession he may choose, subject only to such restrictions as are imposed
upon all persons of like age, sex and conditions. This right may in many aspects be considered
as a distinguishing feature of our republican institutions. Here all vocations are open to
everyone on like conditions. All may be pursued as sources of livelihood, some requiring years
of study and great learning for their successful prosecution. The interest, or, as it is sometimes
termed, the estate acquired in them — that is, the right to continue their prosecution — is often
of great value to the possessors, and cannot be arbitrarily taken from them, any more than their
real or personal property can be thus taken. But there is no arbitrary deprivation of such right
when its exercise is not permitted because of a failure to comply with conditions imposed by the
state for the prosecution of society. The power (police power) of the state to provide for the
general welfare of its people authorizes it to prescribe all such regulations as in its judgment will
secure, or tend to secure, them against the consequences of ignorance and incapacity as well
as of deception and fraud. As one means to this end, it has been the practice of different States,
from the time immemorial, to exact in many pursuits (professions or trades) a certain degree of
skill and learning upon which the community may confidently rely, their possession being
generally ascertained upon an examination of parties by competent persons, or inferred from a
certificate to them in the form of a diploma or license from an institutions established for
instruction on the subjects, scientific and otherwise, with which such pursuits have to deal. ...
Few professions require more careful preparation by one who seeks to enter it than that of
medicine. It has to deal with all those subtle and mysterious influences upon which health and
life depend and requires not only a knowledge of the properties of vegetables and mineral
substances, but of the human body in all its complicated parts and their relation to each other,
as well as their influence upon the mind. The physician must be able to detect readily the
presence of disease, and prescribe appropriate remedies for its removal. Everyone may have
occasion to consult him, but comparatively few can judge of the qualifications of learning and
skill which he possesses. Reliance must be placed upon the assurance given by his license,
issued by authority competent to judge in that respect, that he possesses the requisite
qualifications. Due consideration, therefore, for the protection of society may well induce the
state to exclude from practice those who have not such a license, or who are found, upon
examination, not to be fully qualified. The same reasons which control in imposing conditions,
upon compliance with which the physician is allowed to practice in the first instance, may call for
further conditions as new modes of treating disease are discovered, or a more thorough
acquaintance is obtained of the remedial properties of vegetables and mineral substances, or a
more accurate knowledge is acquired of the human system, and of the agencies by which it is
affected. ... We perceive nothing in the statute which indicates an intentions of the legislature to
deprive one of any of his rights. No one has a right to practice medicine without having the
necessary qualifications of learning and skill; and the statute only requires that whoever
assumes, by offering to the community his services as a physician, that he possesses such
learning and skill, shall present evidence of it by a certificate or license from a body designated
by the state as competent to judge of his qualifications."

The appellant contends, however, that the Legislature exceeded its authority in conferring upon
the Board of Medical Examiners the right to revoke his license. He contends that the right to
revoke it rests in the judicial department of the Government; that the courts only are possessed
of the right, if the right exists, to revoke his license and to deprive him of his right to practice his
profession of medicine and surgery. It will be remembered that the law conferred upon the
Board the right to grant the certificate, as well sa the right to revoke it, subject to the right of
appeal to the Director of Health. While, in some respects, the power exercised by the Board
is quasi judicial, the action of the Board is not judicial, any more than the action of a board
appointed to determine the qualifications of applicants for admission to the bar, nor that of a
board appointed to pass upon the qualifications of applicants to be admitted to the profession of
teaching. In many of the States of the Union, no one can engage in the trade of barbering, or
horseshoeing, without passing an examination before a board specially appointed for that
purpose. States have deemed it wiser to place such power and discretion in boards composed
of men especially qualified, by reason of their learning and scientific knowledge, rather than in
the courts.

It is contended that the law provides no appeal from the decision of the board to the courts, and
is, for that reason, null and void. A law is not necessarily invalid, if it provides a remedy for those
affected thereby, simply because it does not provides for an appeal to the courts. Due process
of law is not necessarily judicial process. (Murray's Lessee vs. Hoboken Land etc. Co., 18 How.
(U.S.), 372; Davidson vs. New Orleans, 96 U.S., 97; Ex parte Wall, 107 U.S., 265, 289;
Dreyer vs. Illinois, 187 U.S., 71, 83; Reetz vs. Michigan, 188 U.S., 505.) Indeed, it not
infrequently happens that a full discharge of the duties conferred upon boards and commissions
or officers of a purely ministerial character requires them to consider and to finally determine
questions of a purely legal character. The legislature may confer upon persons, boards, officers,
and commissions the right to finally decide may questions affecting various interest of the
people of the state. If a remedy is granted, the law will be valid, even though no appeal to the
courts is provided. The right of appeal is a purely statutory right; it is not an inherent right. The
right to appeal was not at common law, and it is not now, a necessary element of due process
of law. (McKane vs. Durston, 153 U.S., 684, 687; Reetz vs. Michigan, 188 U.S., 505, 508.)

The objection that the statute confers judicial power upon the Board of Medical Examiners is not
well founded. The law provided for an appeal to the Director of Health. Many executive officers,
even those who are are regarded as purely ministerial officers, act judicially in the determination
of facts in the performance of their duties, and in so doing "they do not exercise judicial power,"
as that phrase is commonly used, and as it is used in the Organic Act in conferring judicial
power upon specified courts. The powers conferred upon the Board of Medical Examiners are in
no wise different in character, in this respect, from those exercised by those of examiners of
candidates to teach in our public schools, or by tax assessors, or boards of equalization, in the
determination for the purposes of taxation, the value of property. The ascertainment and
determination of the qualifications to practice medicine, by a board appointed for that purpose,
composed of experts, is not the exercise of a power which appropriately belongs to the judicial
department of the Government. The same is true with reference to the power conferred upon
such a board to revoke a license, for the reasons given in the law. (People vs. Hasbrouck, 11
Utah, 291; Reetz vs. Michigan 188 U.S., 505, 507.)

The appellant further argues and contends that the present law is repealed by section 88 of the
Act of Congress of July 1, 1902. We think from the foregoing argument we have shown that
there is nothing in said Act of Congress which is inconsistent with the provisions of Act No. 310,
under consideration, and that it is not repealed.

What has been said, we think also answers the argument of the appellant in support of his
second, third, and fourth assignments of error. It may be well, however, to observe in relation to
the third assignment that the appellant cannot object to the decision of the Board, when he
himself, after his appeal, voluntarily withdrew it.

With reference to the fifth assignment of error, the record shows, beyond question, that the
appellant had personally engaged in the practice of medicine and surgery, in clear contravention
of the law, without being authorized so to do. It is a matter of little importance whether the
appellant practiced medicine and surgery as the "Hotel Quirurgico" or not. The record shows
that he personally and illegally engaged in the practice of medicine. The poor sick patients who
called him for medical assistance certainly did not believe or think that they were calling the
"Hotel Quirurgico." They believed that they were being treated by the appellant. So ordered.

For all of the foregoing reasons the sentence of the lower court is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.

 FIRST DIVISION

ST. LUKES MEDICAL CENTER G.R. No. 162053

EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-AFW
(SLMCEA-AFW) AND MARIBEL S.
SANTOS,
Petitioners, Present:

PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CORONA,
AZCUNA, and
GARCIA, JJ.
-versus-

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION (NLRC) AND ST. LUKES Promulgated:
MEDICAL CENTER, INC.,
Respondents. March 7, 2007
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

AZCUNA, J.:

Challenged in this petition for review on certiorari is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA)
dated January 29, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No. 75732 affirming the decision[2]dated August 23,
2002 rendered by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC CA No. 026225-
00.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

Petitioner Maribel S. Santos was hired as X-Ray Technician in the

Radiology department of private respondent St. Lukes Medical Center, Inc. (SLMC)
on October 13, 1984. She is a graduate of Associate in Radiologic Technology from
The Family Clinic Incorporated School of Radiologic Technology.

On April 22, 1992, Congress passed and enacted Republic Act No. 7431
known as the Radiologic Technology Act of 1992. Said law requires that no person
shall practice or offer to practice as a radiology and/or x-ray technologist in
the Philippines without having obtained the proper certificate of registration from
the Board of Radiologic Technology.

On September 12, 1995, the Assistant Executive Director-Ancillary

Services and HR Director of private respondent SLMC issued a final notice to all
practitioners of Radiologic Technology to comply with the requirement of Republic
Act No. 7431 by December 31, 1995; otherwise, the unlicensed employee will be
transferred to an area which does not require a license to practice if a slot is
available.

On March 4, 1997, the Director of the Institute of Radiology issued a final

notice to petitioner Maribel S. Santos requiring the latter to comply with Republic
Act. No. 7431 by taking and passing the forthcoming examination scheduled in
June 1997; otherwise, private respondent SLMC may be compelled to retire her
from employment should there be no other position available where she may be
absorbed.

On May 14, 1997, the Director of the Institute of Radiology, AED-Division of

Ancillary Services issued a memorandum to petitioner Maribel S. Santos directing
the latter to submit her PRC Registration form/Examination Permit per
Memorandum dated March 4, 1997.

On March 13, 1998, the Director of the Institute of Radiology issued another
memorandum to petitioner Maribel S. Santos advising her that only a license can
assure her of her continued employment at the Institute of Radiology of the private
respondent SLMC and that the latter is giving her the last chance to take and pass
the forthcoming board examination scheduled in June 1998; otherwise, private
respondent SLMC shall be constrained to take action which may include her
separation from employment.

On November 23, 1998, the Director of the Institute of Radiology issued a

notice to petitioner Maribel S. Santos informing the latter that the management of
private respondent SLMC has approved her retirement in lieu of separation pay.

On November 26, 1998, the Personnel Manager of private respondent

SLMC issued a Notice of Separation from the Company to petitioner Maribel S.
Santos effective December 30, 1998 in view of the latters refusal to accept private
respondent SLMCs offer for early retirement. The notice also states that while said
private respondent exerted its efforts to transfer petitioner Maribel S. Santos to
other position/s, her qualifications do not fit with any of the present vacant positions
in the hospital.

In a letter dated December 18, 1998, a certain Jack C. Lappay, President

of the Philippine Association of Radiologic Technologists, Inc., wrote Ms. Judith
Betita, Personnel Manager of private respondent SLMC, requesting the latter to
give due consideration to the organizations three (3) regular members of his
organization (petitioner Maribel S. Santos included) for not passing yet the Board
of Examination for X-ray Technology, by giving them an assignment in any
department of your hospital awaiting their chance to pass the future Board Exam.

On January 6, 1999, the Personnel Manager of private respondent SLMC

again issued a Notice of Separation from the Company to petitioner Maribel S.
Santos effective February 5, 1999 after the latter failed to present/ submit her
appeal for rechecking to the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) of the
recent board examination which she took and failed.
 On March 2, 1999, petitioner Maribel S. Santos filed a complaint against
private respondent SLMC for illegal dismissal and non-payment of salaries,
allowances and other monetary benefits. She likewise prayed for the award of
moral and exemplary damages plus attorneys fees.

In the meantime, petitioner Alliance of Filipino Workers (AFW), through its

President and Legal Counsel, in a letter dated September 22, 1999 addressed to
Ms. Rita Marasigan, Human Resources Director of private respondent SLMC,
requested the latter to accommodate petitioner Maribel S. Santos and assign her
to the vacant position of CSS Aide in the hospital arising from the death of an
employee more than two (2) months earlier.

In a letter dated September 24, 1999, Ms. Rita Marasigan replied thus:

Gentlemen:
Thank you for your letter of September 22, 1999 formally
requesting to fill up the vacant regular position of a CSS Aide in
Ms. Maribel Santos behalf.

The position is indeed vacant. Please refer to our Recruitment

Policy for particulars especially on minimum requirements of the
job and the need to meet said requirements, as well as other pre-
employment requirements, in order to be considered for the vacant
position. As a matter of fact, Ms. Santos is welcome to apply for
any vacant position on the condition that she possesses the
necessary qualifications.

As to the consensus referred to in your letter, may I correct you that

the agreement is, regardless of the vacant position Ms. Santos
decides to apply, she must go through the usual application
procedures. The formal letter, I am afraid, will not suffice for
purposes of recruitment processing. As you know, the managers
requesting to fill any vacancy has a say on the matter and correctly
so. The managers inputs are necessarily factored into the standard
recruitment procedures. Hence, the need to undergo the
prescribed steps.

Indeed we have gone through the mechanics to accommodate Ms.

Santos transfer while she was employed with SLMC given the
prescribed period. She was given 30 days from issuance of the
notice of termination to look for appropriate openings which
incidentally she wittingly declined to utilize. She did this knowing
fully well that the consequences would be that her application
beyond the 30-day period or after the effective date of her
termination from SLMC would be considered a re-application with
loss of seniority and shall be subjected to the pertinent application
procedures.

Needless to mention, one of the 3 X-ray Technologists in similar

circumstances as Ms. Santos at the time successfully managed to
get herself transferred to E.R. because she opted to apply for the
 appropriate vacant position and qualified for it within the prescribed
30-day period. The other X-ray Technologist, on the other hand, as
you may recall, was eventually terminated not just for his failure to
comply with the licensure requirement of the law but for cause
(refusal to serve a customer).

Why Ms. Santos opted to file a complaint before the Labor Courts
and not to avail of the opportunity given her, or assuming she was
not qualified for any vacant position even if she tried to look for one
within the prescribed period, I simply cannot understand why she
also refused the separation pay offered by Management in an
amount beyond the minimum required by law only to re-apply at
SLMC, which option would be available to her anyway even (if she)
chose to accept the separation pay!

Well, heres hoping that our Union can timely influence our
employees to choose their options well as it has in the past.

(Signed)
RITA MARASIGAN

Subsequently, in a letter dated December 27, 1999, Ms. Judith Betita,

Personnel Manager of private respondent SLMC wrote Mr. Angelito Calderon,
President of petitioner union as follows:

Dear Mr. Calderon:

This is with regard to the case of Ms. Maribel Santos. Please recall
that last Oct. 8, 1999, Ms. Rita Marasigan, HR Director, discussed
with you and Mr. Greg Del Prado the terms regarding the re-hiring
of Ms. Maribel Santos. Ms. Marasigan offered Ms. Santos the
position of Secretary at the Dietary Department. In that meeting, Ms.
Santos replied that she would think about the offer. To date, we still
have no definite reply from her. Again, during the conference held
on Dec. 14, 1999, Atty. Martir promised to talk to Ms. Santos, and
inform us of her reply by Dec. 21, 1999. Again we failed to hear her
reply through him.

Please be informed that said position is in need of immediate

staffing. The Dietary Department has already been experiencing
serious backlog of work due to the said vacancy. Please note that
more than 2 months has passed since Ms. Marasigan offered this
compromise. Management cannot afford to wait for her decision
while the operation of the said department suffers from vacancy.

Therefore, Management is giving Ms. Santos until the end of this

month to give her decision. If we fail to hear from her or from you as
her representatives by that time, we will consider it as a waiver and
we will be forced to offer the position to other applicants so as not to
jeopardize the Dietary Departments operation.
 For your immediate action.

(Signed)
JUDITH BETITA
Personnel Manager
On September 5, 2000, the Labor Arbiter came out with a Decision ordering
private respondent SLMC to pay petitioner Maribel S. Santos the amount of One
Hundred Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P115,500.00) representing her
separation pay. All other claims of petitioner were dismissed for lack of merit.

Dissatisfied, petitioner Maribel S. Santos perfected an appeal with the public

respondent NLRC.

On August 23, 2002, public respondent NLRC promulgated its Decision affirming
the Decision of the Labor Arbiter. It likewise denied the Motion for Reconsideration
filed by petitioners in its Resolution promulgated on December 27, 2002.

Petitioner thereafter filed a petition for certiorari with the CA which, as previously
mentioned, affirmed the decision of the NLRC.

Hence, this petition raising the following issues:

I. Whether the CA overlooked certain material facts and circumstances

on petitioners legal claim in relation to the complaint for illegal dismissal.

II. Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion and erred in not
resolving with clarity the issues on the merit of petitioners constitutional right
of security of tenure.[3]

For its part, private respondent St. Lukes Medical Center, Inc. (SLMC) argues in its
comment[4] that: 1) the petition should be dismissed for failure of petitioners to file a motion for
reconsideration; 2) the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding the NLRC and
the Labor Arbiters ruling that petitioner was legally dismissed; 3) petitioner was legally and validly
terminated in accordance with Republic Act Nos. 4226 and 7431; 4) private respondents decision
to terminate petitioner Santos was made in good faith and was not the result of unfair
discrimination; and 5) petitioner Santos non-transfer to another position in the SLMC was a valid
exercise of management prerogative.
The petition lacks merit.
 Generally, the Court has always accorded respect and finality to the findings of fact of the
CA particularly if they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC and are supported
by substantial evidence.[5] True this rule admits of certain exceptions as, for example, when the
judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts, or the findings of fact are not supported by the
evidence on record[6] or are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute grave abuse of
discretion.[7] None of these exceptions, however, has been convincingly shown by petitioners to
apply in the present case. Hence, the Court sees no reason to disturb such findings of fact of the
CA.

Ultimately, the issue raised by the parties boils down to whether petitioner Santos was
illegally dismissed by private respondent SLMC on the basis of her inability to secure a certificate
of registration from the Board of Radiologic Technology.

The requirement for a certificate of registration is set forth under R.A. No. 7431[8] thus:
Sec. 15. Requirement for the Practice of Radiologic Technology and X-ray
Technology. Unless exempt from the examinations under Sections 16 and 17
hereof, no person shall practice or offer to practice as a radiologic and/or x-ray
technologist in the Philippines without having obtained the proper certificate of
registration from the Board.

It is significant to note that petitioners expressly concede that the sole cause for
petitioner Santos separation from work is her failure to pass the board licensure exam for X-ray
technicians, a precondition for obtaining the certificate of registration from the Board. It is argued,
though, that petitioner Santos failure to comply with the certification requirement did not constitute
just cause for termination as it violated her constitutional right to security of tenure. This contention
is untenable.

While the right of workers to security of tenure is guaranteed by the Constitution, its
exercise may be reasonably regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard
health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and the general welfare of the people.
Consequently, 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.[9] The most concrete example of this would be in the field of medicine, the
practice of which in all its branches has been closely regulated by the State. It has long been
recognized that the regulation of this field is a reasonable method of protecting the health and
safety of the public to protect the public from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and
ignorance among those who would practice medicine.[10] The same rationale applies in the
regulation of the practice of radiologic and x-ray technology. The clear and unmistakable intention
of the legislature in prescribing guidelines for persons seeking to practice in this field is embodied
in Section 2 of the law:
Sec. 2. Statement of Policy. It is the policy of the State to upgrade the
practice of radiologic technology in the Philippines for the purpose of protecting the
public from the hazards posed by radiation as well as to ensure safe and proper
diagnosis, treatment and research through the application of machines and/or
equipment using radiation.[11]

In this regard, the Court quotes with approval the disquisition of public respondent NLRC
in its decision dated August 23, 2002:

The enactment of R.A. (Nos.) 7431 and 4226 are recognized as an exercise
of the States inherent police power. It should be noted that the police power
embraces the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals,
educations, good order, safety or general welfare of the people. The state is
justified in prescribing the specific requirements for x-ray technicians and/or any
other professions connected with the health and safety of its citizens. Respondent-
appellee being engaged in the hospital and health care business, is a proper
subject of the cited law; thus, having in mind the legal requirements of these laws,
the latter cannot close its eyes and [let] complainant-appellants private interest
override public interest.

Indeed, complainant-appellant cannot insist on her sterling work

performance without any derogatory record to make her qualify as an x-ray
technician in the absence of a proper certificate of Registration from the Board of
Radiologic Technology which can only be obtained by passing the required
examination. The law is clear that the Certificate of Registration cannot be
substituted by any other requirement to allow a person to practice as a Radiologic
Technologist and/or X-ray Technologist (Technician).[12]

No malice or ill-will can be imputed upon private respondent as the separation of

petitioner Santos was undertaken by it conformably to an existing statute. It is undeniable that her
continued employment without the required Board certification exposed the hospital to possible
sanctions and even to a revocation of its license to operate. Certainly, private respondent could
not be expected to retain petitioner Santos despite the inimical threat posed by the latter to its
business. This notwithstanding, the records bear out the fact that petitioner Santos was given
ample opportunity to qualify for the position and was sufficiently warned that her failure to do so
would result in her separation from work in the event there were no other vacant positions to which
she could be transferred. Despite these warnings, petitioner Santos was still unable to comply
and pass the required exam. To reiterate, the requirement for Board certification was set by
statute. Justice, fairness and due process demand that an employer should not be penalized for
situations where it had no participation or control.[13]

It would be unreasonable to compel private respondent to wait until its license is cancelled
and it is materially injured before removing the cause of the impending evil. Neither can the courts
step in to force private respondent to reassign or transfer petitioner Santos under these
circumstances. Petitioner Santos is not in the position to demand that she be given a different
work assignment when what necessitated her transfer in the first place was her own fault or failing.
The prerogative to determine the place or station where an employee is best qualified to serve
the interests of the company on the basis of the his or her qualifications, training and performance
belongs solely to the employer.[14] The Labor Code and its implementing Rules do not vest in the
Labor Arbiters nor in the different Divisions of the NLRC (nor in the courts) managerial authority.[15]

While our laws endeavor to give life to the constitutional policy on social justice and the
protection of labor, it does not mean that every labor dispute will be decided in favor of the
workers. The law also recognizes that management has rights which are also entitled to respect
and enforcement in the interest of fair play.[16] Labor laws, to be sure, do not authorize interference
with the employer's judgment in the conduct of the latters business. Private respondent is free to
determine, using its own discretion and business judgment, all elements of employment, "from
hiring to firing" except in cases of unlawful discrimination or those which may be provided by
law. None of these exceptions is present in the instant case.

The fact that another employee, who likewise failed to pass the required exam, was
allowed by private respondent to apply for and transfer to another position with the hospital does
not constitute unlawful discrimination. This was a valid exercise of management prerogative,
petitioners not having alleged nor proven that the reassigned employee did not qualify for the
position where she was transferred. In the past, the Court has ruled that an objection founded on
the ground that one has better credentials over the appointee is frowned upon so long as the
latter possesses the minimum qualifications for the position.[17] Furthermore, the records show
that Ms. Santos did not even seriously apply for another position in the company.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.
 Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila

Twelfth Congress
Second Regular Session

Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-second day of July, two thousand two.

Republic Act No. 9173 October 21, 2002

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A MORE RESPONSIVE NURSING PROFESSION, REPEALING

FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7164, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "THE
PHILIPPINE NURSING ACT OF 1991" AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:

ARTICLE I

Title

Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Philippine Nursing Act of 2002."

ARTICLE II

Declaration of Policy

Section 2. Declaration of Policy. – It is hereby declared the policy of the State to assume
responsibility for the protection and improvement of the nursing profession by instituting
measures that will result in relevant nursing education, humane working conditions, better
career prospects and a dignified existence for our nurses.

The State hereby guarantees the delivery of quality basic health services through an adequate
nursing personnel system throughout the country.

ARTICLE III

Organization of the Board of Nursing

Section 3. Creation and Composition of the Board. - There shall be created a Professional
Regulatory Board of Nursing, hereinafter referred to as the Board, to be composed of a
Chairperson and six (6) members. They shall be appointed by the president of the Republic of
the Philippines from among two (2) recommendees, per vacancy, of the Professional Regulation
Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, chosen and ranked from a list of three
(3) nominees, per vacancy, of the accredited professional organization of nurses in the
Philippines who possess the qualifications prescribed in Section 4 of this Act.

Section 4. Qualifications of the Chairperson and Members of the Board. - The Chairperson and
Members of the Board shall, at the time of their appointment, possess the following
qualifications:

(a) Be a natural born citizen and resident of the Philippines;

(b) Be a member of good standing of the accredited professional organization of nurses;

(c) Be a registered nurse and holder of a master's degree in nursing, education or other
allied medical profession conferred by a college or university duly recognized by the
Government: Provided, That the majority of the members of the Board shall be holders
of a master's degree in nursing: Provided, further, That the Chairperson shall be a holder
of a master's degree in nursing;

(d) Have at least ten (10) years of continuous practice of the profession prior to
appointment: Provided, however, That the last five (5) years of which shall be in the
Philippines; and

(e) Not have been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude; Provided, That the
membership to the Board shall represent the three (3) areas of nursing, namely: nursing
education, nursing service and community health nursing.

Section 5. Requirements Upon Qualification as Member of the Board of Nursing. - Any person
appointed as Chairperson or Member of the Board shall immediately resign from any teaching
position in any school, college, university or institution offering Bachelor of Science in Nursing
and/or review program for the local nursing board examinations or in any office or employment
in the government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-
owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries as well as these employed in the private
sector. He/she shall not have any pecuniary interest in or administrative supervision over any
institution offering Bachelor of Science in Nursing including review classes.

Section 6. Term of Office.. - The Chairperson and Members of the Board shall hold office for a
term of three (3) years and until their successors shall have been appointed and
qualified: Provided, That the Chairperson and members of the Board may be re-appointed for
another term.

Any vacancy in the Board occurring within the term of a Member shall be filled for the unexpired
portion of the term only. Each Member of the Board shall take the proper oath of office prior to
the performance of his/her duties.

The incumbent Chairperson and Members of the Board shall continue to serve for the
remainder of their term under Republic Act No. 7164 until their replacements have been
appointed by the President and shall have been duly qualified.

Section 7. Compensation of the Board Members. - The Chairperson and Members of the Board
shall receive compensation and allowances comparable to the compensation and allowances
received by the Chairperson and members of other professional regulatory boards.
Section 8. Administrative Supervision of the Board, Custodian of its Records, Secretariat and
Support Services. - The Board shall be under the administrative supervision of the Commission.
All records of the Board, including applications for examinations, administrative and other
investigative cases conducted by the Board shall be under the custody of the Commission. The
Commission shall designate the Secretary of the Board and shall provide the secretariat and
other support services to implement the provisions of this Act.

Section 9. Powers and Duties of the Board. - The Board shall supervise and regulate the
practice of the nursing profession and shall have the following powers, duties and functions:

(a) Conduct the licensure examination for nurses;

(b) Issue, suspend or revoke certificates of registration for the practice of nursing;

(c) Monitor and enforce quality standards of nursing practice in the Philippines and
exercise the powers necessary to ensure the maintenance of efficient, ethical and
technical, moral and professional standards in the practice of nursing taking into account
the health needs of the nation;

(d) Ensure quality nursing education by examining the prescribed facilities of universities
or colleges of nursing or departments of nursing education and those seeking
permission to open nursing courses to ensure that standards of nursing education are
properly complied with and maintained at all times. The authority to open and close
colleges of nursing and/or nursing education programs shall be vested on the
Commission on Higher Education upon the written recommendation of the Board;

(e) Conduct hearings and investigations to resolve complaints against nurse

practitioners for unethical and unprofessional conduct and violations of this Act, or its
rules and regulations and in connection therewith, issue subpoena ad
testificandum and subpoena duces tecum to secure the appearance of respondents and
witnesses and the production of documents and punish with contempt persons
obstructing, impeding and/or otherwise interfeming with the conduct of such
proceedings, upon application with the court;

(f) Promulgate a Code of Ethics in coordination and consultation with the accredited
professional organization of nurses within one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act;

(g) Recognize nursing specialty organizations in coordination with the accredited

professional organization; and

(h) Prescribe, adopt issue and promulgate guidelines, regulations, measures and
decisions as may be necessary for the improvements of the nursing practice,
advancement of the profession and for the proper and full enforcement of this Act
subject to the review and approval by the Commission.

Section 10. Annual Report. - The Board shall at the close of its calendar year submit an annual
report to the President of the Philippines through the Commission giving a detailed account of
its proceedings and the accomplishments during the year and making recommendations for the
adoption of measures that will upgrade and improve the conditions affecting the practice of the
nursing profession.
Section 11. Removal or Suspension of Board Members. - The president may remove or
suspend any member of the Board after having been given the opportunity to defend
himself/herself in a proper administrative investigation, on the following grounds;

(a) Continued neglect of duty or incompetence;

(b) Commission or toleration of irregularities in the licensure examination; and

(c) Unprofessional immoral or dishonorable conduct.

ARTICLE IV

Examination and Registration

Section 12. Licensure Examination. - All applicants for license to practice nursing shall be
required to pass a written examination, which shall be given by the Board in such places and
dates as may be designated by the Commission: Provided, That it shall be in accordance with
Republic Act No. 8981, otherwise known as the "PRC Modernization Act of 2000."

Section 13. Qualifications for Admission to the Licensure Examination. - In order to be admitted
to the examination for nurses, an applicant must, at the time of filing his/her application,
establish to the satisfaction of the Board that:

(a) He/she is a citizen of the Philippines, or a citizen or subject of a country which

permits Filipino nurses to practice within its territorial limits on the same basis as the
subject or citizen of such country: Provided, That the requirements for the registration or
licensing of nurses in said country are substantially the same as those prescribed in this
Act;

(b) He/she is of good moral character; and

(c) He/she is a holder of a Bachelor's Degree in Nursing from a college or university that
complies with the standards of nursing education duly recognized by the proper
government agency.

Section 14. Scope of Examination. - The scope of the examination for the practice of nursing in
the Philippines shall be determined by the Board. The Board shall take into consideration the
objectives of the nursing curriculum, the broad areas of nursing, and other related disciplines
and competencies in determining the subjects of examinations.

Section 15. Ratings. - In order to pass the examination, an examinee must obtain a general
average of at least seventy-five percent (785%) with a rating of not below sixty percent (60%) in
any subject. An examinee who obtains an average rating of seventy-five percent (75%) or
higher but gets a rating below sixty percent (60%) in any subject must take the examination
again but only in the subject or subjects where he/she is rated below sixty percent (60%). In
order to pass the succeeding examination, an examinee must obtain a rating of at least seventy-
five percent (75%) in the subject or subjects repeated.
Section 16. Oath. - All successful candidates in the examination shall be required to take an
oath of profession before the Board or any government official authorized to administer oaths
prior to entering upon the nursing practice.

Section 17. Issuance of Certificate of Registration/Professional License and Professional

Identification Card. - A certificate of registration/professional license as a nurse shall be issued
to an applicant who passes the examination upon payment of the prescribed fees. Every
certificate of registration/professional license shall show the full name of the registrant, the serial
number, the signature of the Chairperson of the Commission and of the Members of the Board,
and the official seal of the Commission.

A professional identification card, duly signed by the Chairperson of the Commission, bearing
the date of registration, license number, and the date of issuance and expiration thereof shall
likewise be issued to every registrant upon payment of the required fees.

Section 18. Fees for Examination and Registration. - Applicants for licensure and for
registration shall pay the prescribed fees set by Commission.

Section 19. Automatic Registration of Nurses. - All nurses whose names appear at the roster of
nurses shall be automatically or ipso facto registered as nurses under this Act upon its
effectivity.

Section 20. Registration by Reciprocity. - A certificate of registration/professional license may

be issued without examination to nurses registered under the laws of a foreign state or
country: Provided, That the requirements for registration or licensing of nurses in said country
are substantially the same as those prescribed under this Act:Provided, further, That the laws of
such state or country grant the same privileges to registered nurses of the Philippines on the
same basis as the subjects or citizens of such foreign state or country.

Section 21. Practice Through Special/Temporary Permit. - A special/temporary permit may be

issued by the Board to the following persons subject to the approval of the Commission and
upon payment of the prescribed fees:

(a) Licensed nurses from foreign countries/states whose service are either for a fee or
free if they are internationally well-known specialists or outstanding experts in any
branch or specialty of nursing;

(b) Licensed nurses from foreign countries/states on medical mission whose services
shall be free in a particular hospital, center or clinic; and

(c) Licensed nurses from foreign countries/states employed by schools/colleges of

nursing as exchange professors in a branch or specialty of nursing;

Provided, however, That the special/temporary permit shall be effective only for the duration of
the project, medical mission or employment contract.

Section 22. Non-registration and Non-issuance of Certificates of Registration/Professional

License or Special/Temporary Permit. - No person convicted by final judgment of any criminal
offense involving moral turpitude or any person guilty of immoral or dishonorable conduct or any
person declared by the court to be of unsound mind shall be registered and be issued a
certificate of registration/professional license or a special/temporary permit.

The Board shall furnish the applicant a written statement setting forth the reasons for its actions,
which shall be incorporated in the records of the Board.

Section 23. Revocation and suspension of Certificate of Registration/Professional License and

Cancellation of Special/Temporary Permit. - The Board shall have the power to revoke or
suspend the certificate of registration/professional license or cancel the special/temporary
permit of a nurse upon any of the following grounds:

(a) For any of the causes mentioned in the preceding section;

(b) For unprofessional and unethical conduct;

(c) For gross incompetence or serious ignorance;

(d) For malpractice or negligence in the practice of nursing;

(e) For the use of fraud, deceit, or false statements in obtaining a certificate of
registration/professional license or a temporary/special permit;

(f) For violation of this Act, the rules and regulations, Code of Ethics for nurses and
technical standards for nursing practice, policies of the Board and the Commission, or
the conditions and limitations for the issuance of the temporarily/special permit; or

(g) For practicing his/her profession during his/her suspension from such practice;

Provided, however, That the suspension of the certificate of registration/professional license

shall be for a period not to exceed four (4) years.

Section 24. Re-issuance of Revoked Certificates and Replacement of Lost Certificates. - The
Board may, after the expiration of a maximum of four (4) years from the date of revocation of a
certificate, for reasons of equity and justice and when the cause for revocation has disappeared
or has been cured and corrected, upon proper application therefor and the payment of the
required fees, issue another copy of the certificate of registration/professional license.

A new certificate of registration/professional license to replace the certificate that has been lost,
destroyed or mutilated may be issued, subject to the rules of the Board.

ARTICLE V

Nursing Education

Section 25. Nursing Education Program. - The nursing education program shall provide sound
general and professional foundation for the practice of nursing.
The learning experiences shall adhere strictly to specific requirements embodied in the
prescribed curriculum as promulgated by the Commission on Higher Education's policies and
standards of nursing education.

Section 26. Requirement for Inactive Nurses Returning to Practice. - Nurses who have not
actively practiced the profession for five (5) consecutive years are required to undergo one (1)
month of didactic training and three (3) months of practicum. The Board shall accredit hospitals
to conduct the said training program.

Section 27. Qualifications of the Faculty. - A member of the faculty in a college of nursing
teaching professional courses must:

(a) Be a registered nurse in the Philippines;

(b) Have at least one (1) year of clinical practice in a field of specialization;

(c) Be a member of good standing in the accredited professional organization of nurses;

and

(d) Be a holder of a master's degree in nursing, education, or other allied medical and
health sciences conferred by a college or university duly recognized by the Government
of the Republic of the Philippines.

In addition to the aforementioned qualifications, the dean of a college must have a

master's degree in nursing. He/she must have at least five (5) years of experience in
nursing.

ARTICLE VI

Nursing Practice

Section 28. Scope of Nursing. - A person shall be deemed to be practicing nursing within the
meaning of this Act when he/she singly or in collaboration with another, initiates and performs
nursing services to individuals, families and communities in any health care setting. It includes,
but not limited to, nursing care during conception, labor, delivery, infancy, childhood, toddler,
preschool, school age, adolescence, adulthood, and old age. As independent practitioners,
nurses are primarily responsible for the promotion of health and prevention of illness. A
members of the health team, nurses shall collaborate with other health care providers for the
curative, preventive, and rehabilitative aspects of care, restoration of health, alleviation of
suffering, and when recovery is not possible, towards a peaceful death. It shall be the duty of
the nurse to:

(a) Provide nursing care through the utilization of the nursing process. Nursing care
includes, but not limited to, traditional and innovative approaches, therapeutic use of
self, executing health care techniques and procedures, essential primary health care,
comfort measures, health teachings, and administration of written prescription for
treatment, therapies, oral topical and parenteral medications, internal examination during
labor in the absence of antenatal bleeding and delivery. In case of suturing of perineal
laceration, special training shall be provided according to protocol established;
 (b) establish linkages with community resources and coordination with the health team;

(c) Provide health education to individuals, families and communities;

(d) Teach, guide and supervise students in nursing education programs including the
administration of nursing services in varied settings such as hospitals and clinics;
undertake consultation services; engage in such activities that require the utilization of
knowledge and decision-making skills of a registered nurse; and

(e) Undertake nursing and health human resource development training and research,
which shall include, but not limited to, the development of advance nursing practice;

Provided, That this section shall not apply to nursing students who perform nursing functions
under the direct supervision of a qualified faculty: Provided, further, That in the practice of
nursing in all settings, the nurse is duty-bound to observe the Code of Ethics for nurses and
uphold the standards of safe nursing practice. The nurse is required to maintain competence by
continual learning through continuing professional education to be provided by the accredited
professional organization or any recognized professional nursing organization: Provided, finally,
That the program and activity for the continuing professional education shall be submitted to
and approved by the Board.

Section 29. Qualification of Nursing Service Administrators. - A person occupying supervisory

or managerial positions requiring knowledge of nursing must:

(a) Be a registered nurse in the Philippines;

(b) Have at least two (2) years experience in general nursing service administration;

(c) Possess a degree of Bachelors of Science in Nursing, with at least nine (9) units in
management and administration courses at the graduate level; and

(d) Be a member of good standing of the accredited professional organization of nurses;

Provided, That a person occupying the position of chief nurse or director of nursing service
shall, in addition to the foregoing qualifications, possess:

(1) At least five (5) years of experience in a supervisory or managerial position in

nursing; and

(2) A master's degree major in nursing;

Provided, further, That for primary hospitals, the maximum academic qualifications and
experiences for a chief nurse shall be as specified in subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this
section: Provided, furthermore, That for chief nurses in the public health nursing shall be given
priority. Provided, even further, That for chief nurses in military hospitals, priority shall be given
to those who have finished a master's degree in nursing and the completion of the General Staff
Course (GSC): Provided, finally, That those occupying such positions before the effectivity of
this Act shall be given a period of five (5) years within which to qualify.
 ARTICLE VII

Health Human Resources Production, Utilization and Development

Section 30. Studies for Nursing Manpower Needs, Production, Utilization and Development. -
The Board, in coordination with the accredited professional organization and appropriate
government or private agencies shall initiate undertake and conduct studies on health human
resources production, utilization and development.

Section 31. Comprehensive Nursing Specialty Program. - Within ninety (90) days from the
effectivity of this Act, the Board in coordination with the accredited professional organization
recognized specialty organizations and the Department of Health is hereby mandated to
formulate and develop a comprehensive nursing specialty program that would upgrade the level
of skill and competence of specialty nurse clinicians in the country, such as but not limited to the
areas of critical care, oncology, renal and such other areas as may be determined by the Board.

The beneficiaries of this program are obliged to serve in any Philippine hospital for a period of at
least two (2) years and continuous service.

Section 32. Salary. - In order to enhance the general welfare, commitment to service and
professionalism of nurses the minimum base pay of nurses working in the public health
institutions shall not be lower than salary grade 15 prescribes under Republic Act No. 6758,
otherwise known as the "Compensation and Classification Act of 1989": Provided, That for
nurses working in local government units, adjustments to their salaries shall be in accordance
with Section 10 of the said law.

Section 33. Funding for the Comprehensive Nursing Specialty Program. - The annual financial
requirement needed to train at least ten percent (10%) of the nursing staff of the participating
government hospital shall be chargeable against the income of the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office and the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, which shall
equally share in the costs and shall be released to the Department of Health subject to
accounting and auditing procedures: Provided, That the department of Health shall set the
criteria for the availment of this program.

Section 34. Incentives and Benefits. - The Board of Nursing, in coordination with the
Department of Health and other concerned government agencies, association of hospitals and
the accredited professional organization shall establish an incentive and benefit system in the
form of free hospital care for nurses and their dependents, scholarship grants and other non-
cash benefits. The government and private hospitals are hereby mandated to maintain the
standard nurse-patient ratio set by the Department of Health.

ARTICLE VIII

Penal and Miscellaneous Provisions

Section 35. Prohibitions in the Practice of Nursing. - A fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) nor more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or imprisonment of
not less than one (1) year nor more than six (6) years, or both, upon the discretion of the court,
shall be imposed upon:
 (a) any person practicing nursing in the Philippines within the meaning of this Act:

(1) without a certificate of registration/professional license and professional

identification card or special temporary permit or without having been declared
exempt from examination in accordance with the provision of this Act; or

(2) who uses as his/her own certificate of registration/professional license and

professional identification card or special temporary permit of another; or

(3) who uses an invalid certificate of registration/professional license, a

suspended or revoked certificate of registration/professional license, or an
expired or cancelled special/temporary permits; or

(4) who gives any false evidence to the Board in order to obtain a certificate of
registration/professional license, a professional identification card or special
permit; or

(5) who falsely poses or advertises as a registered and licensed nurse or uses
any other means that tend to convey the impression that he/she is a registered
and licensed nurse; or

(6) who appends B.S.N./R.N. (Bachelor of Science in Nursing/Registered Nurse)

or any similar appendage to his/her name without having been coferred said
degree or registration; or

(7) who, as a registered and licensed nurse, abets or assists the illegal practice
of a person who is not lawfully qualified to practice nursing.

(b) any person or the chief executive officer of a judicial entity who undertakes in-service
educational programs or who conducts review classes for both local and foreign
examination without permit/clearance from the Board and the Commission; or

(c) any person or employer of nurses who violate the minimum base pay of nurses and
the incentives and benefits that should be accorded them as specified in Sections 32
and 34; or

(d) any person or the chief executive officer of a juridical entity violating any provision of
this Act and its rules and regulations.

ARTICLE IX

Final Provisions

Section 36. Enforcement of this Act. - It shall be the primary duty of the Commission and the
Board to effectively implement this Act. Any duly law enforcement agencies and officers of
national, provincial, city or municipal governments shall, upon the call or request of the
Commission or the Board, render assistance in enforcing the provisions of this Act and to
prosecute any persons violating the same.
Section 37. Appropriations. - The Chairperson of the Professional Regulation Commission shall
immediately include in its program and issue such rules and regulations to implement the
provisions of this Act, the funding of which shall be included in the Annual General
Appropriations Act.

Section 38. Rules and Regulations. - Within ninety (90) days after the effectivity of this Act, the
Board and the Commission, in coordination with the accredited professional organization, the
Department of Health, the Department of Budget and Management and other concerned
government agencies, shall formulate such rules and regulations necessary to carry out the
provisions of this Act. The implementing rules and regulations shall be published in the Official
Gazette or in any newspaper of general circulation.

Section 39. Reparability Clause. - If any part of this Act is declared unconstitutional, the
remaining parts not affected thereby shall continue to be valid and operational.

Section 40. Repealing Clause. - Republic Act No. 7164, otherwise known as the "Philippine
Nursing Act of 1991" is hereby repealed. All other laws, decrees, orders, circulars, issuances,
rules and regulations and parts thereof which are inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed,
amended or modified accordingly.

Section 41. Effectivity. - This act shall take effect fifteen (15) days upon its publication in
the Official Gazette or in any two (2) newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.

Approved,

FRANKLIN DRILON JOSE DE VENECIA JR.

President of the Senate Speaker of the House of
Representatives

This Act, which originated in the House of Representative was finally passed by the House of
Representatives and the Senate on October 15, 2002 and October 8, 2003 respectively.

OSCAR G. YABES ROBERTO P. NAZARENO

Secretary of Senate Secretary General
House of Represenatives

Approved: October 21, 2002

GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
President of the Philippines
Republic Act No. 94
 Republic of the Philippines

Congress of the Philippines

Metro Manila

Thirteenth Congress

Third Special Session

Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the nineteenth day of February, two thousand
seven.

[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9484]

AN ACT TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF DENTISTRY, DENTAL HYGIENE AND DENTAL

TECHNOLOGY IN THE PHILIPPINES, REPEALING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO.
4419, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “AN ACT TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF DENTISTRY IN
THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”, AND REPUBLIC ACT NO. 768,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “AN ACT TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF DENTAL HYGIENISTS
IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFOR

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress

assembled:

ARTICLE I

TITLE, STATEMENT OF POLICY, OBJECTIVES,

AND SCOPE OF PRACTICE

SECTION 1. Title. — This Act shall be known as “The Philippine Dental Act of 2007”.

SEC. 2. Statement of Policy. — The State recognizes the importance of dentists, dental hygienists
and dental technologists in nation-building. Hence, it shall develop and nurture competent,
productive, morally-upright, and well rounded dentists, dental hygienists and dental technologists
whose standards of professional practice and service shall be excellent, qualitative, world-class
and internationally recognized, globally competitive through regulatory measures, programs and
activities that foster their continuing professional development.

SEC. 3. Objectives. — This Act provides for:

(a) The regulation, control, and supervision of the practice of dentistry, dental hygiene and dental
technology in the Philippines;

(b) The giving of licensure examination to graduates of recognized dental schools of dentistry,
dental hygiene and dental technology for the purpose of registration;

(c) The accreditation of the various specialties of dentistry;

(d) The promotion and development of continuing dental education and research in the country;

(e) The enforcement of the Code of Ethics and Code of Dental Practice in the Philippines; and

(f) The stipulation of penalties for infractions or violations of this Act or any other laws, rules and
regulations authorized under the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 4. Definition and Scope of Practice. —

(a) Dentist — refers to a person who is a holder of a valid certificate of registration and
professional identification card in Dentistry who renders dental service within the meaning and
intent of this Law and who, for a fee, salary, compensation or reward, paid to him/her or through
another, or even without such compensation or reward, performs any operation or part of an
operation, upon the human oral cavity, jaws, teeth and surrounding tissues; prescribes drugs or
medicines for the treatment of oral diseases or lesions, or prevents and/ or corrects malpositions
of the teeth or implantation of artificial substitutes for lost teeth; and teaches subjects in the
licensure examination: or engages in dental research: Provided, however, That this provision shall
not apply to dental technologists engaged in the mechanical construction of artificial dentures or
fixtures or other oral devices, as long as none of such procedures is done inside the mouth of the
patient; nor shall this provision apply to students of dentistry undergoing practical training in a
legally constituted dental school or college under the direction or supervision of a member of the
faculty who is duly licensed to practice dentistry in the Philippines; or to registered dental
hygienists who may be allowed to perform preventive oral hygiene procedures and other
procedures or to dentistry graduates working as dental assistants to licensed and registered
dentist authorized to practice dentistry in the Philippines who are engaged in private
practice: Provided, further, That these dentistry graduates work under their direct supervision.

(b) Dental Hygienist — refers to a person who is a holder of a valid certificate of registration and
professional identification card and has undergone a two year course in dental hygiene from a
government recognized school under a college of dentistry and passing the prescribed board
examination for dental hygienist, renders oral health promotion and preventive measures,
performs scaling and polishing, oral examination, taking brief clinical history, taking radiograph,
and giving oral health education to patients under the supervision of a licensed dentist.

(c) Dental Technologist — refers to a person who is a holder of a valid certificate of registration
and professional identification card and who renders technical services such as mechanical
construction of artificial denture and other oral devices under the supervision of a licensed dentist,
and has finished a two year certificate course in dental technology from any government
recognized school.

ARTICLE II

THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATORY BOARD

OF DENTISTRY

SEC. 5. Composition of the Board. — There is hereby created a Professional Regulatory Board
of Dentistry, hereinafter referred to as the Board, under the administrative control and supervision
of the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), hereinafter referred to as the Commission,
composed of a chairman and four members who shall be appointed by the President of the
Philippines from the recommendees chosen and ranked by the Commission from a list of
nominees submitted by the accredited and integrated professional organization.

SEC. 6. Powers and Functions of the Board. — The Board shall have the following powers and
functions:

(a) Promulgate, administer and enforce rules and regulations necessary for carrying out the
provisions of this Act;

(b) Administer oaths in connection with the administration of this Act;

(c) Study the conditions affecting the practice of dentistry, dental hygiene and dental technology
in the Philippines;

(d) Adopt or recommend such measures or discharge such duties, as may be deemed proper for
the advancement of the profession and the vigorous enforcement of this Act;

(e) Ensure, in coordination with the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), Technical
Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), the Accredited Professional Organization,
and the Association of Dental Colleges, that all educational institutions offering dentistry, dental
hygiene, and dental technology comply with the policies, standards and requirements of the
course prescribed by the CHED or TESDA in the areas of curriculum, faculty, library, and facilities;

(f) Supervise and regulate the registration, licensure and practice of dentistry, dental hygiene and
dental technology in the Philippines;

(g) Adopt an official seal of the Board;

(h) Issue, reinstate, suspend or revoke the certificate of registration and professional identification
card or cancel special permits for the practice of dentistry, dental hygiene and dental technology;

(i) Prescribe and/or adopt a Code of Ethics and a Code of Dental Practice for the practice of
dentistry, dental hygiene and dental technology;

(j) Prescribe guidelines and criteria in the Continuing Professional Education (CPE) program for
dentistry, dental hygiene and dental technology;

(k) Hear or investigate any violation of this Act, its implementing rules and regulations, and the
Code of Ethics for dentists as shall come to the knowledge of the Board and for this purpose,
issue a subpoena duces tecum to secure the appearance of witnesses and the production of
documents in connection therewith;

(l) Accredit various specialties, dental societies/ organizations; and

(m) Perform such other powers and functions as it may deem necessary to carry out the objectives
of this Act.

SEC. 7. Qualification of the Chairman and Members of the Board. — The chairman and members
of the Board shall, at the time of his/her appointment, possess the following qualifications:
(a) Be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and a resident thereof;

(b) Be a duly registered dentist in the Philippines with a valid certificate of registration and
professional identification card;

(c) Be a member of good standing of the accredited professional organization for the last five
years: Provided, That a member of the Board may not qualify in any position, whether elective or
appointive or serve as an officer of the accredited and integrated professional organization of
dentists, dental hygienists, and dental technologists during his/her incumbency as such;

(d) Have at least ten (10) years of continuous experience as a dentist and preferably with three
years of teaching experience;

(e) Not be a member of the faculty of any school, college, or university where undergraduate and
graduate courses in dentistry are taught and where dental hygiene and dental technology courses
and review courses are offered, nor shall have, directly or indirectly, any pecuniary interest in
such institution; and

(f) Not be connected in any capacity with any business enterprise, firm or company in the buying,
selling or manufacture of dental goods, equipment, materials or supplies.

SEC. 8. Term of Office. — The chairman and the members of the Board shall serve for a term of
three years from the date of their appointments and may be reappointed for another term. The
member serving the last year of his term shall automatically become the chairman of the Board
and shall not be able to succeed himself/herself immediately after the expiration of his/her term
of office so that the term of one member shall be due to expire every year: Provided, however,
That all appointments as chairman shall be approved by the President: Provided, further, That an
appointment for any existing vacancy or vacancies shall be made within one month from the time
the vacancy occurred and shall be for the unexpired portion of the term only.

SEC. 9. Compensation and Allowances of the Board. — The chairman and members of the Board
shall receive compensation and allowances comparable to that being received by the chairman
and members of existing regulatory boards under the Commission as provided for in the annual
General Appropriations Act.

SEC. 10. Suspension and Removal from Office. — Any member of the Board may, upon the
recommendation of the Commission after due process of law and investigation conducted by the
Commission, be suspended or removed by the President from office for cause such as neglect of
duty, abuse of power, oppression, incompetence, unprofessional, unethical, immoral or
dishonorable conduct, commission or toleration of irregularities in the conduct of examination or
tampering of the grades therein, or for any final judgment or conviction of any criminal offense
involving moral turpitude by the court after having been given the opportunity to defend himself/
herself in a proper administrative investigation.

SEC. 11. Supervision of the Board. — The secretary of the Board shall be appointed by the
Commission subject to the provisions of existing laws and all records and minutes of the
deliberation of proceedings of the Board and other confidential documents shall be kept under
the direct custody of the Commission. The Commission shall provide the secretariat and other
support services to implement the provisions of this Act.
SEC. 12. Annual Report. — The Board shall, within sixty (60) days after the close of each fiscal
year, prepare and submit an annual report to the Commission, giving a detailed account of the
proceedings of the Board during the year, recommending measures to be adopted, with the end
in view of upgrading and improving the conditions affecting the practice of Dentistry in the
Philippines.

ARTICLE III

LICENSURE EXAMINATION AND REGISTRATION

SEC. 13. Examination Required. — All applicants for registration for the practice of Dentistry,
Dental Hygiene and Dental Technology shall be required to undergo a licensure examination to
be given by the Board in such places and dates as the Commission may designate subject to the
compliance with the requirements prescribed by the Commission in accordance with Republic Act
No. 8981.

SEC. 14. Qualification for Admission to the Licensure Examination. —

(a) For Dentistry — An applicant for the licensure examination for dentists shall establish to the
satisfaction of the Board, that:

(1) he/she is a citizen of the Philippines, or if a foreigner, must prove that the country of which
he/she is a subject or citizen permits Filipino dentists to practice within its territorial jurisdiction on
the same basis as the subjects or citizens of such country;

(2) he/she has not been convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude;

(3) he/she is a graduate of a recognized and legally constituted university, college, school or
institute with a degree of doctor of dental medicine or its equivalent; and

(4) he/she has completed the refresher course required after failing three consecutive licensure
examinations.

(b) For Dental Hygiene — In order to be admitted to the licensure examination for dental
hygienists, an applicant must at the time of filing his application thereof, establish to the
satisfaction of the Board, that:

(1) he/she is a citizen of the Philippines;

(2) he/she possesses good moral character;

(3) he/she had finished the two years certificate in dental hygiene conferred by a recognized and
legally constituted college, or school of dentistry registered with the TESDA; and

(4) he/she has completed the refresher course required after failing three consecutive licensure
examinations.
(c) For Dental Technology — In order to be admitted to the licensure examination for dental
technology, an applicant must, at the time of filing his/her application thereof, establish to the
satisfaction of the Board that:

(1) he/she is a citizen of the Philippines;

(2) he/she possesses good moral character;

(3) he/she had finished the two years certificate in dental technology conferred by a recognized
and legally constituted college, or school of dentistry registered with the TESDA;

(4) he/she has undergone on-the-job training in a registered/accredited dental laboratory for at
least six months; and

(5) he/she has completed the refresher course required after failing three consecutive licensure
examinations.

SEC. 15. Scope of Examination. — An examination shall be given to the licensure applicants for
dentists, dental hygienists, and dental technologists, which shall include, but not limited to, the
following:

(a) For Dentists — General anatomy, oral anatomy, general and microscopic anatomy and
embryology, general and oral physiology, general and oral pathology, pharmacology,
microbiology, nutrition, dental materials, restorative dentistry, prosthodontics, orthodontics,
pedodontics, pediatric dentistry, oral physiology, anesthesiology, oral diagnosis and treatment
planning, endodontics, periodontics, roentgenology, oral surgery, dental jurisprudence and ethics,
community dentistry and practice management.

(b) For Dental Hygienists — oral anatomy and physiology, dental materials, periodontology,
roentgenology, preventive dentistry, pedodontics, dental anesthesia and pharmacology,
pathology, dental jurisprudence and ethics, and basic computer.

(c) For Dental Technologists — oral anatomy, oral physiology, complete, fixed and removable
prosthodontics, ceramics, orthodontic appliances, dental materials, dental jurisprudence and
ethics, and basic computer.

The Board may recluster, rearrange, modify, add or exclude and prescribe subjects as the need
arises.

SEC. 16. Ratings in the Examinations. — The licensure examination shall consist of both written
and practical tests and in order to pass the examination, an examinee must obtain a general
weighted average of at least seventy-five percent (75%), with no rating below fifty percent (50%)
in any subject.

SEC. 17. Report of the Results of the Examinations. — The Board shall submit to the Commission
the ratings obtained by each candidate within twenty (20) days after the last day of examination
unless extended for just cause.
SEC. 18. Oath. — All successful examinees and registrants without examination shall be required
to take a professional oath before any member of the Board or any other person authorized by
the Commission or by law before they start their practice.

SEC. 19. Issuance of the Certificate of Registration and Professional Identification Card. — A
certificate of registration shall be issued to examinees who pass the licensure examination for
dentistry subject to payment of fees prescribed by the Commission. The certificate of registration
shall bear the signature of the chairperson of the Commission and the chairman and members of
the Board stamped with the official seal of the Board and the Commission, indicating that the
person named therein is entitled to practice the profession with all the benefits and privileges
appurtenant thereto. The certificate of registration shall remain in force and effect until revoked or
suspended in accordance with this Act.

A professional identification card bearing the registration number, date of issuance, expiry date,
duly signed by the chairperson of the Commission shall likewise be issued to every registrant
upon payment of the required fees. The professional identification card shall be renewed every
three years upon payment of fees and upon satisfying the requirements of the Board.

SEC. 20. Fees for Examination and Registration. — Every applicant to the licensure examination
for dentistry shall pay an examination fee and a registration fee as determined and fixed by the
Commission.

SEC. 21. Refusal to Issue Certificates for Certain Causes. — The Board shall refuse to issue a
certificate of registration to any successful examinee or to any examinee registered without
examination 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
investigation by the Board, or has been declared to be of unsound mind. The reason for the refusal
shall be set forth in writing.

SEC. 22. Revocation or Suspension of Certificate of Registration and Professional Identification

Card and Cancellation of Temporary/Special Permit. — The Board shall have the power to
recommend the nullification or suspension of the validity of the certificate of registration and
professional identification card of a dentist, dental technologist and dental hygienist or the
cancellation of a temporary/special permit for any of the causes mentioned in the preceding
section, or for:

(a) Unprofessional and unethical conduct;

(b) Malpractice;

(c) Incompetence, serious ignorance or negligence in the practice of dentistry, dental hygiene,
and dental technology;

(d) Willful destruction or mutilation of a natural tooth of a patient with the deliberate purpose of
substituting the same by an unnecessary or unessential artificial tooth;

(e) For making use of fraud, deceitful or false statement to obtain a certificate of registration;

(f) For alcoholism or drug addiction causing him/her to become incompetent to practice dentistry,
dental hygiene and dental technology;
(g) For the employment of persons who are not duly authorized to do the work which, under this
Act, can only be done by persons who have certificates of registration to practice dentistry, dental
hygiene and dental technology in the Philippines;

(h) For the employment of deceit or any form of fraud with the public in general or some clients in
particular for the purpose of extending his/her clientele;

(i) For making false advertisements, publishing or circulating fraudulent or deceitful allegations
regarding his/her professional attainment, skill or knowledge, or methods of treatment employed
by him; and

(j) Utter disregard and continuous violation of any of the provisions of this Act: Provided, That the
action of the Board in the exercise of this power shall be appealable to the Commission.

SEC. 23. Reinstatement, Reissuance or Replacement of Certificate of Registration and

Professional Identificaton Card. — Two years after the date of revocation, the Board may, upon
application and for reasons deemed proper and sufficient, reinstate any revoked certificate of
registration and reissue a professional identification card; and in so doing, the Board may, in its
discretion, exempt the applicant from taking another examination.

SEC. 24. Issuance of Special/Temporary Permit to Foreigners. — Certificates of Registration shall

not be required of: (a) commissioned dental officers of the army, navy and air force of any foreign
country whose operations in the Philippines are permitted by the government while rendering
dental service as such for the members of said forces only; and (b) of dentist and oral surgeons
from other countries who are invited for consultation, demonstrations, medical missions or under
an exchange visitor program as a member of a teaching faculty: Provided, That in such cases
their work shall be limited to the specific task assigned to them, and: Provided, further, That a
special permit has been previously granted by the Board and the Commission stating therein the
duration of such permit: Provided, furthermore, That the Board may designate the accredited
professional organization, through its constituent chapters and affiliates, to monitor such activities.

ARTICLE IV

PRACTICE OF DENTISTRY, DENTAL HYGIENE

AND DENTAL TECHNOLOGY

SEC. 25. Code of Ethics and Code of Dental Practice for Dentists. — The Board shall adopt and
promulgate the Code of Ethics and Code of Dental Practice of dentists, dental hygienists and
dental technologists prescribed and issued by the accredited professional organization of dentists.

SEC. 26. Vested Rights. — All dentists and dental hygienists registered at the time this law takes
effect shall automatically be registered under the provisions hereof, subject however to the
provisions herein set forth as to future requirements. Certificates of registration held by such
persons in good standing shall have the same force and effect as though issued after the passage
of this Act.

SEC. 27. Registration Without Examination for Dental Hygienists and Dental Technologists. — A
person who possesses the equivalent qualifications required for admission in the examination for
dental hygienist or dental technologist pursuant to this Act, may be registered without
examination: Provided, That the applicant files with the Board within three years after the
effectivity of this Act, an application for registration and issuance of a certificate of registration and
professional identification card, by submitting credentials showing that the applicant, before the
effectivity of this Act:

(a) Had been given a certificate in dental hygiene or dental technology by a duly recognized
college, school or institution and had at least three years actual experience as dental hygienist or
dental technologist in an accredited or licensed dental clinic or laboratory; or

(b) Had been practicing as a dental hygienist or dental technologist for at least five years in a
licensed dental laboratory or clinic under the supervision of a dentist and had attended a training
course given by an accredited school or institution accredited and certified by TESDA.

SEC. 28. Display of Name and Certificate of Registration. — Every registered practicing dentist,
dental hygienist and dental technologist shall display in a conspicuous place in the building or
office where he/she practices, his/her name and his/ her certificate or registration in plain sight of
patients who enter the dental office, or dental clinic or dental laboratory. In the case where the
dentist has more than one clinic, the original certificate of registration should be displayed in his/
her main office or clinic, and he/she shall display a copy of his/her certified original certificate of
registration in the other branch or branches of his/her practice. Any owner or proprietor of a dental
office or establishment shall display the certificates of registration of each and everyone of such
persons in the same manner as hereinafter provided.

SEC. 29. Continuing Professional Education. — The PRC Board in collaboration with the
accredited professional organization (APO), shall implement the continuing professional
education among practicing dentists, dental hygienists and dental technologists in consonance
with the guidelines of the Continuing Professional Education (CPE) council of the Commission.
Exemption from the CPE program may be applied for upon reaching the age of sixty-five (65).

SEC. 30. Integration of Dentists, Dental Hygienists and Dental Technologists. — All registered
dentists, dental hygienists and dental technologists shall be integrated into one national
organization which shall be recognized by the Board and accredited by the Commission as the
one and only accredited integrated association to which all dentists, dental hygienists and dental
technologists shall belong. Henceforth, all dentists, dental hygienists and dental technologists to
be registered with the Board shall automatically become a member of the accredited integrated
professional organization upon payment of required fees and dues. Membership in the accredited
and integrated national organization of dentists, dental hygienists and dental technologists shall
not be a bar to membership in other associations of dentists, dental hygienists and dental
technologists.

SEC. 31. Foreign Reciprocity. — Unless the country of which he/she is a subject or citizen
specifically permits Filipino dentists to practice within its territorial limits on the same basis as the
subject or citizens of such foreign state or country under reciprocity and under international
agreements, no foreigner shall be admitted to the examination and be given a certificate of
registration to practice as a dentist and be entitled to any of the privileges under this Act.

SEC. 32. Roster of Dentists, Dental Hygienists and Dental Technologists. — The Board, in
coordination with the accredited professional organization (APO), shall maintain a roster of the
name, residences and of the addresses of all registered dentists, dental hygienists and dental
technologists and shall make this roster available to the public upon request.
 ARTICLE V

PENAL PROVISION AND ENFORCEMENT

OF THE ACT

SEC. 33. Penal Provision. — The following, shall be punished by a fine of not less than Two
hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) nor more than Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) or to suffer imprisonment for a period of not less than two years and one day nor
more than five years, or both, in the discretion of the court:

(a) Any person who shall practice dentistry, dental hygiene or dental technology in the Philippines
as defined in this Act, without a certificate of registration and professional identification card and
special permit issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act, or has been declared exempt;

(b) Any person who practice the profession to whom the definition of the practice of dentistry,
dental hygiene or dental technology does not apply;

(c) Any licensed dentist who shall abet the illegal practice of dentistry;

(d) Any person presenting or using as his/her own the certificate of registration and professional
identification card and special permit of another;

(e) Any person who shall give any false or forged evidence to the Board in obtaining a certificate
of registration;

(f) Any person who shall impersonate any registrant of like or different name;

(g) Any person who shall use a revoked or suspended certificate of registration and professional
identification card;

(h) Any person who shall assume, use or advertise as a bachelor of dental surgery, doctor of
dental surgery, master of dental surgery, licentiate of dental surgery, doctor of dental medicine,
or dental surgeon, or append to his name the letters D.D.S., B.D.S., L.D.S., or D.M.D. without
having been conferred such title or degree in a legally constituted school, college or university,
duly recognized and authorized to confer the same or other degrees; and

(i) Any person who advertises any title or description tending to convey the impression that he/she
is a dentist, without holding valid certificate of registration and professional identification card and
special permit from the Board.

SEC. 34. Enforcement of this Act. — It shall be the duty of all constituted officers of the law of the
national, provincial, city, municipal or barangay level of the government, to enforce the provisions
of this Act as well as the rules and regulations pertinent thereto, and to prosecute any person
violating the same. The Secretary of Justice shall act as the legal adviser of the Board and the
Commission and shall render such legal assistance as may be necessary in carrying out the
provisions of this Act.

ARTICLE VI
 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 35. Funding Provision. — The Chairperson of the Professional Regulation Commission shall
immediately include in the Commission’s programs the implementation of this Act, the funding of
which shall be included in the Annual General Appropriations Act.

SEC. 36. Transitory Provision. — The existing Board shall continue to function in the interim until
such time that the new Professional Regulatory Board of Dentistry shall be constituted pursuant
to this Act.

SEC. 37. Implementing Rules and Regulations. — The Board, in coordination with the accredited
professional organization and with the approval of the Commission, shall promulgate, adopt and
implement such rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 38. Separability Clause. — If any section or provision of this Act shall be declared invalid or
unconstitutional, such shall not invalidate any other section or provision of this Act.

SEC. 39. Repealing Clause. — Republic Act No. 4419 and Republic Act No. 768, are hereby
repealed. All other laws or portions thereof, orders, ordinances, or rules and regulations in conflict
with the provisions of this Act as pertain to the practice of dentistry shall be, and are hereby
repealed.

SEC. 40. Effectivity. — This Act shall take effect following its publication in the Official Gazette or
in any newspaper of general circulation.

Approved,

(Sgd.) JOSE DE VENECIA JR. (Sgd.) MANNY VILLAR.

Speaker of the House President of the Senate
of Representatives

This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2581 and House Bill No. 4848 was finally
passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on February 8, 2007 and February 20,
2007 respectively.

(Sgd.) ROBERTO P. NAZARENO (Sgd.) OSCAR G. YABES

Secretary General Secretary of the Senate
House of Representatives

Approved: JUN 02 2007

(Sgd.) GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

President of the Philippines
REPUBLIC ACT No. 5921

AN ACT REGULATING THE PRACTICE OF PHARMACY AND SETTING STANDARDS OF

PHARMACEUTICAL EDUCATION IN THE PHILIPPINES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

ARTICLE 1
Objectives and Implementation

Section 1. Objectives. This Act provides for and shall govern (a) the standardization and regulation
of pharmaceutical education; (b) the examination for registration of graduates of schools of
pharmacy and (c) the supervision, control and regulation of the practice of pharmacy in the
Philippines.

Section 2. Enforcement. For the purposes of implementing the provisions of this Act, the Council of
Pharmaceutical Education and the Board of Pharmacy are hereby created.

ARTICLE II
The Council of Pharmaceutical Education

Section 3. The Council of Pharmaceutical Education and its composition. The Council of
Pharmaceutical Education shall be composed of the Secretary of Education, Chairman, the
Undersecretary of Health Services, the Food and Drug Administrator, the Chairman of the Board of
Pharmacy, the dean of the College of Pharmacy, University of the Philippines, the dean of a college
of pharmacy, representing duly accredited private schools of pharmacy, and a representative of the
bona fide national pharmaceutical organizations in the Philippines.

It shall be incumbent upon all deans of duly accredited colleges of pharmacy of private colleges and
universities by agreement among themselves to promulgate rules and regulations regarding the
selection of one from among their group to represent them in the said Council and it shall be
incumbent upon all presidents of bona fide national pharmaceutical organizations in the Philippines
by agreement to promulgate rules and regulations regarding the selection of one from among them
to represent them in the said Council.

The members of the Council shall hold office until their successors have been appointed, elected or
designated and duly qualified.

Section 4. Functions. The functions of the Council of Pharmaceutical Education shall be:

(a) To promulgate rules and regulations relative to Pharmaceutical Education in the

Philippines;

(b) To submit such rules and regulations, which shall have a binding effect, for
implementation to the proper agencies such as Department of Education, the Board of
Pharmacy, the bona fide national pharmaceutical organizations in the Philippines and others;

(c) To recognize and accredit colleges of pharmacy in the different private colleges and
universities; and

(d) To approve the accreditation of community or prescription pharmacies, pharmaceutical

manufacturing laboratories and hospital pharmacies for purposes of pharmacy internship.
Section 5. Meetings and traveling expenses. The Council of Pharmaceutical Education shall meet at
least once a month for regular business and as often as the Council may decide. The Chairman and
members of the Council of Pharmaceutical Education shall not be entitled to any compensation
except for traveling expenses in connection with their official duties as herein provided.

ARTICLE III
The Board of Pharmacy and Examination and Registration of Pharmacists

Section 6. The Board of Pharmacy and its Composition. The Board of Pharmacy shall be composed
of a Chairman and two members who shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines with the
consent of the Commission of Appointments, from a list of nominees recommended by the
Commissioner of Civil Service who shall secure such lists from bona fide professional national
organizations of pharmacists which should be certified in accordance with Republic Act Numbered
Five hundred forty-six.

Section 7. Qualification of Board members. To be appointed a member of the Board of Pharmacy, a

person shall be:

(a) A natural born citizen of the Philippines;

(b) A duly registered pharmacist and has been in the practice of pharmacy for at least ten
years;

(c) Of good moral character and of recognized standing in the pharmaceutical profession;

(d) At the time of appointment, not a member of the faculty of any school, college or
university offering courses in pharmacy; nor have any direct or indirect pecuniary interests in
such school or college of pharmacy; and

(e) A member of good standing of any bona fide national pharmaceutical association of the
Philippines.

Section 8. Tenure of office and fees of board members. The Chairman and members of the Board
of Pharmacy shall hold office for three years after appointment or until their successors shall have
been appointed and duly qualified: Provided, That members of the first Board to be appointed after
the approval of this Act shall hold office for the following terms: Chairman for three years, one
member for two years and one member for one year: Provided, further, That any chairman or
member may be reappointed for another term of three years but in no case shall be serve
continuously for more than six years. The most senior member of the Board shall automatically be
the Chairman.

The Chairman and members of the Board shall each receive the sum of ten pesos for each applicant
examined regardless of whether or not he is already in the government service when appointed.

Section 9. Removal of the Board members. The chairman or member of the Board may be removed
by the President of the Philippines if found guilty of neglect of duty, incompetence, malpractice, or
unprofessional, unethical, immoral, or dishonorable conduct, after having been given the opportunity
to defend himself in a proper administrative investigation. The President may in his discretion
suspend such member under investigation: Provided, however, That the period of suspension shall
not exceed sixty days after which the latter shall be automatically reinstated pending the outcome of
the investigation.
Section 10. Executive Officer of the Board. The Commissioner of Civil Service shall be the
Executive Officer of the Board and shall conduct the examination given by it according to the rules
and regulations promulgated by him and approved by the President of the Philippines. The Secretary
of the Board of Examiners in accordance with Republic Act Numbered Five hundred and forty six
shall also be the Secretary of the Board. To assist both officials, there shall be appointed from the
ranking employees of the Board of Examiners, an Assistant Secretary, a Legal Officer and a
Records Officer with compensation of eight thousand eight hundred thirty-two pesos, seven
thousand two hundred thirty-six pesos and five thousand nine hundred twenty-eight pesos,
respectively who may also perform identical functions for the other existing examination boards. All
the records of the Board including examination papers, minutes of deliberation and records of
administrative proceedings shall be kept by the Secretary of the Board.

Section 11. Powers and duties of the Board. The Board of Pharmacy, conformably with the
provisions of this Act is vested with authority:

(a) To examine applicants for the practice of pharmacy;

(b) To issue certificates of registration or pharmacists.

(c) To reprimand any pharmacist or to suspend or revoke his certificate of registration on the
grounds as provided for in Section thirteen hereof, after a formal administrative investigation
has been conducted by it.

(d) To promulgate from time to time the necessary rules and regulations for the effective
enforcement of this Act, subject to the approval of the President upon advice of the
Commissioner of Civil Service;

(e) To study the conditions affecting the practice of pharmacy in the Philippines;

(f) To check the employment of qualified personnel in drug stores, hospital pharmacies, drug
or pharmaceutical laboratories, cosmetic laboratories and similar establishments for which
the Board may designate inspectors from the Board of Pharmacy; and

(g) To encourage the development of botanical gardens and their inspection particularly the
propagation of Philippine medicinal plants with the cooperation of the Department of
Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Section 12. Detailmen, requirements, qualifications and fees. Any person who shall be employed as
detailman by any pharmaceutical or drug laboratory or other manufacturers of medical, dental
pharmaceutical, biological and veterinary products and by distributors, dealers or wholesalers of said
products, doing business directly or indirectly in the Philippines, shall be required, at the beginning of
each year, to register with the Board of Pharmacy that he is employed as such.

(a) An applicant for registration shall be, preferably, a graduate of a college of pharmacy.

There shall be an initial fee of twenty pesos upon registration and thereafter fifteen pesos
shall be charged annually for renewal. Upon payment of said fees, the proper credential shall
be issued to the applicant.
 (b) It shall be incumbent upon the drug establishments referred to in this section to require
that detailmen employed or to be employed by them possess the necessary credentials
issued by the Board of Pharmacy as provided for herein.

For purposes of this section, a detailman is one who represents any duly authorized manufacturer,
dealer, distributor, representative or wholesaler of drugs, pharmaceuticals, biologic products and
devices, whose primary duty is to introduce or reacquaint a product or products prepared, distributed
or made by said manufacturers, dealer, distributor, representative or wholesaler to the physician,
dentist, pharmacist, veterinarian or any other qualified person and which forms part of their program
for promotion by describing its use, composition, action, dosage, administration, contra-indication,
advantages and other salient information relative to said drug, pharmaceutical, biological product or
device.

Section 13. Grounds for reprimand, suspension or revocation of registrant certificate. Any of the
following shall be sufficient ground for reprimanding a pharmacist, or for suspending or revoking his
certificate of registration:

(a) Conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction of any violation as penalized in sections

forty and forty-one hereof;

(b) Immoral or dishonorable conduct which includes conviction by a competent court of any
criminal offense involving moral turpitude;

(c) Fraud or deceit in the acquisition of the certificate of registration;

(d) Gross negligence, ignorance or incompetence in the practice of his profession resulting in
the injury damage or death of another;

(e) Malpractice, including aiding or abetting the commission of criminal abortion or sex
crimes through illegal compounding, dispensing or sale of abortive or sex drugs as the case
may be;

(f) Acting as a dummy of an alien or of a person who is not qualified to establish and operate
a retail drugstore;

(g) Addiction to alcoholic beverage or to any habit-forming drug rendering him incompetent to
practice his profession;

(h) Insanity;

(i) False or extravagant or unethical advertisements wherein other things than his name,
profession, limitation of practice, office and home address and the like are mentioned; and

(j) Violations of any provision of the Code of Ethics which may be adopted as part of the
Rules and Regulations of the Board.

Section 14. Administrative Investigation. Administrative investigations shall be conducted by all the
members of the Board sitting en banc. The existing rules of evidence shall be observed as far as
practicable during administrative investigations.
If the Board, by majority vote of the members, shall find that the charges are sustained by evidence
adduced, it may at its discretion reprimand the respondent or revoke or suspend his certificate of
registration. In case of suspension, it shall be for a period of not more than six months. Where the
certificate of registration has been revoked as herein provided, the Board may, after the expiration of
six months and upon application, issue a new certificate of registration in place of a revoked
certificate without the necessity of undergoing any examination if the respondent in the meanwhile
has conducted himself in an exemplary manner.

Section 15. Procedure and rules. The Board of Pharmacy upon receipt of a formal complaint under
oath against any pharmacist, shall furnish the latter a copy of the complaint which he shall answer
within ten days from receipt hereof. If the Board of Pharmacy, after careful study of the records, finds
that there is a valid grounds to the charge it shall conduct a formal investigation setting the dates of
hearing thereof. For this purpose, a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum may be issued by the
Chairman of the Board. The proceedings shall at all times be recorded. The investigation shall be
terminated and resolved within ninety days from the time of the first date of hearing has been set
and heard.

Section 16. Right of respondent. The respondent pharmacist shall be entitled to be heard by himself
or be represented by counsel; to have a speedy and public hearing to confront and to cross-examine
witnesses against him; to summon and present witnesses in his behalf; and to any other process for
the protection of his individual or civil rights.

Section 17. Appeal from judgment. The decision of the Board of Pharmacy shall automatically
become final thirty days from notice to respondent, unless the latter after receipt of the decision and
within the same period has appealed to the President of the Philippines.

Section 18. Candidate for board examination. A candidate for the board examination in Pharmacy
shall have the following qualifications:

(a) He shall be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines;

(b) He shall be of good moral character;

(c) He shall have completed an Internship Program which shall consist of at least nine
hundred sixty hours, one-half of which shall be spent equally distributed in a prescription
pharmacy, a pharmaceutical manufacturing laboratory and a hospital pharmacy duly
accredited by the Council of Pharmacy and the rest of the hours of internship shall be spent
in any or all of the said establishments at the choice of the candidate.

For this purpose, the above-mentioned prescription pharmacy, pharmaceutical

manufacturing laboratory and hospital pharmacy shall keep a separate record of Pharmacy
students who have undergone said internship program directly under their control and as a
result thereof shall issue the proper certificate of said hours of internship. It shall also be the
duty of said establishments to submit annually a complete report of the names of those who
have undergone training under their supervision and the corresponding number of hours of
internship credit of each of the pharmacy students to their respective colleges or school and
to the Board of Pharmacy for proper accreditation; and

(d) He shall have graduated with a degree of Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy or with an
equivalent degree from a school, college or university duly accredited by the Council of
Pharmaceutical Education after satisfactorily completing a standard pharmacy course of not
less than five academic years.
Section 19. Scope of Examination. The pharmacist examination shall consist of both theoretical and
practical examinations. The theoretical examination shall include subjects in Chemistry, Biological
Sciences and Pharmacy.

The Chemistry subjects shall include (1) General, Inorganic, Pharmaceutical and Physical
Chemistry, (2) Organic and Medicinal or Pharmaceutical Chemistry, (3) Qualitative, Quantitative and
Drug Assaying. The Biological Science subjects shall include (4) Physiology and Biochemistry, (5)
Microbiology and Public Health, (6) Pharmacology and Toxicology. The Pharmacy subjects shall
include (7) Botany and Pharmacognosy, (8) General Pharmacy, (9) Compounding and Dispensing,
(10) Physical and Manufacturing Pharmacy, (11) Pharmacy Administration, and (12) Pharmaceutical
Jurisprudence and Ethics. The subjects shall be weighted as follows: Chemistry, thirty per cent;
Biological Science, twenty per cent; Pharmacy, fifty per cent.

The practical examination shall consist of (1) Identification and Analysis of Drugs, (2) Preparation of
Official Pharmaceuticals, (3) Compounding and Dispensing of Prescriptions and Fixing of Prices of
Prescriptions, and (4) Manufacturing Pharmacy and Quality Control. The practical examination shall
be weighted as follows: Identification and Analysis of Drugs, thirty per cent; Compounding of Official
Pharmaceutical Preparations, Dispensing and Fixing of Price of Prescription and Manufacturing
Pharmacy and Quality Control, seventy per cent.

It shall be the duty of the Board of Pharmacy to prepare the schedules of the theoretical and
practical examinations and the syllabus of each subject to be given two months before the dates of
the examination wherein they are to be used.

Section 20. Ratings required. In order to pass the examination, a candidate must obtain on the
basis of one hundred per cent a general average of seventy-five per cent or over in both the
theoretical and practical examinations, with no ratings below fifty per cent in more than two subjects
in the theoretical examinations: Provided, That any candidate who passed in the theoretical
examination but failed in the practical examination, may, upon taking a re-examination, repeat only
the practical examination and vice-versa: Provided, further, That any candidate who fails to pass the
theoretical or practical examination in three successive attempts shall not be admitted in the fourth
examination unless be could present to the Board a certification that he had enrolled and undergone
within the year preceding, a pre-board review course from a duly accredited college of Pharmacy.

Section 21. Holding of examination. Examination for registration to practice pharmacy in the
Philippines shall be given twice a year in the City of Manila and environment as the Board of
Pharmacy may fix.

Section 22. Fees for examination and registration. The Board of Pharmacy shall charge for each
applicant for examination the sum of fifty pesos, and after passing the Board examinations, for each
certificate of registration twenty pesos; and for each duplicate registration certificate, ten pesos. All
fees shall be paid to the cashier of the Board of Examiners and all expenses, including the fees of
the Board members shall be disbursed by him from such funds.

ARTICLE IV
Practice of Pharmacy

Section 23. Definition of practice of pharmacy. A person shall be deemed to be practicing pharmacy
within the meaning of this Article, who shall, for fee, salary, percentage or other reward paid or given
directly to himself or indirectly through another, prepare or manufacture, analyze, assay, preserve,
store, distribute or sell any medicine, drug, chemicals, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, devices or
contrivances used in pursuance thereof; or render pharmaceutical service in any office or drug and
cosmetic establishment where scientific, technological or professional knowledge of Pharmacy is
applied; or engage in teaching scientific, technological or professional pharmacy subject in a college
of pharmacy; or conduct or undertake scientific pharmaceutical research for biological and
bacteriological testings and examinations.

However, persons performing executive managerial or administrative functions and their subordinate
personnel employed in the pharmaceutical laboratories referred to in the second paragraph of
Section twenty-seven hereof shall not be considered for purposes of this definition, considered
persons in the practice of pharmacy.

Section 24. Prerequisite for the practice of pharmacy. No person shall engage in the practice of
pharmacy in the Philippines unless he is at least twenty-one years of age, has satisfactorily passed
the corresponding examination given by the Board of Pharmacy, and is a holder of a valid certificate
of registration duly issued to him by said Board.

Section 25. Sale of medicine, pharmaceuticals, drugs and devices. No medicine, pharmaceutical, or
drug of whatever nature and kind or device shall be compounded, dispensed, sold or resold, or
otherwise be made available to the consuming public except through a prescription drugstore or
hospital pharmacy, duly established in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

Pharmaceutical, drug or biological manufacturing establishments, importers and wholesalers of

drugs, medicines, or biologic products are authorized to sell their products only at wholesale to duly
established retail drugstore or hospital pharmacies.

Section 26. Markings and inhibition to the sale of drug samples. No sample of any drug, biological
product, device or proprietary medicine, given or intended to be given for free to the physician and
other qualified person by any manufacturer or distributor of its representative or detailman as part of
its program or promotion, may be sold.

The statement "Sample, not for sale" shall appear conspicuously on the container, package or carton
of the drug or device to be given.

Section 27. Pharmacist required and compensation. Every pharmacy, drugstore or hospital
pharmacy whether owned by the government or a private person or firm shall at all times when open
for business be under the personal and immediate supervision of a registered pharmacist: Provided,
That no pharmacist shall have personal supervision of more than one such establishment. In cases
where a drug establishment operates in more than one shift, each shift must be under the
supervision and control of a registered pharmacists.

Drug or pharmaceutical laboratories or similar establishments engaged in the repackaging,

manufacture or sale of drugs, biologic products and pharmaceutical products in quantities greatly in
excess of the therapeutic doses of each substance; such processes involving the preparation,
quality control or repackaging of said products shall for each respective operation be under the direct
and immediate supervision of a registered pharmacist, or, in the sale of pharmaceuticals, medicines
and drugs at wholesale, such business shall be conducted under the immediate supervision of a
registered pharmacist practicing only in such establishment.

Every pharmacist employed as such in any of the establishments mentioned in this section whose
capitalization is not less than ten thousand pesos shall receive, notwithstanding any provisions of
law to the contrary, a minimum compensation similar to that of government pharmacists.
Section 28. Display of certificate required. It shall be the duty of every pharmacist engaged in the
practice of pharmacy either on his own account or under the employ of another, to display his
certificate of registration in a prominent and conspicuous place in pharmacy, drugstore, hospital
pharmacy or drug establishment which he operates or in which he is employed. No pharmacist shall
with his knowledge allow his certificate of registration to be displayed in such establishments when
he is not actually employed or operating therein in his professional capacity.

Section 29. Responsibility for quality of drugs. In cases of drugs, pharmaceuticals or poisons sold in
their original packings, the seal of which has not been broken or tampered with, the liability that may
arise because of their quality and purity , rests upon the manufacturer or in his absence, upon the
importer, the distributor, representative or dealer who was responsible for their distribution or sale.

It shall be unlawful for any reason, whoever, to manufacture, prepare, sell or administer any
prescription, drug, pharmaceutical or poison under any fraudulent name, direction or pretense or to
adulterate any drug, pharmaceutical, medicine or poison so used, sold or offered for sale. Any drug,
pharmaceutical, medicine or poison shall be held to be adulterated or deteriorated within the
meaning of this section if it differs from the standard of quality or purity given in the United States
Pharmacopoeia or National Formulary, both in their latest edition or, in lieu thereof, in any standard
reference for drugs and medicines given official recognition; and those which fall within the meaning
as provided for in the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, (Republic Act Numbered Thirty-seven hundred
twenty).

Section 30. Filling and refilling of prescription. No prescription shall be filled or compounded except
by a registered pharmacist in the employ of the drugstore or pharmacy. It shall be incumbent upon
the pharmacist so compounding or filling the prescription to see to it that every component of the
prescription called for metes the standard or purity and quality given in the standard references.
Students undergoing pharmaceutical internship may assist said pharmacist in the compounding and
dispensing of the prescription called for.

No prescription shall be refilled except upon express order of the person so prescribing.

Section 31. Label of dispensed medicine. Upon every box, bottle, or other package containing
medicine sold or dispensed by a pharmacist based on prescription, there shall be pasted, affixed or
imprinted a seal of label bearing, among others, the name and address of pharmacy; the names and
quantities of the ingredients; required doses thereof, its expiration date if any; the name of the
prescriber, date and the number of prescription; and the direction for its use.

Every prescription, which in its preparation, contains any quantity of a drug which is habit-forming, or
a derivative of such drug, shall have in the label attached to the container the added statement
"Warning may be habit forming.

Every prescription for external use filled in the drugstore shall bear a red label showing in black ink
the components of such prescription and the words "For external use only" at the bottom of the label.

Section 32. Record books for prescription. All prescriptions dispersed in the drugstore shall be
recorded in the book kept for the purpose indicating therein, among others, the name of the
manufacturer, the original stock, lot and control numbers of the main ingredients of the prescriptions,
which book shall be open to inspection by the proper authorities at any time of the day when the
pharmacy is open to the public and must be preserved for a period of not less than two years the last
entry in it has been made. All prescription shall be attached to said book for prescriptions and
numbered consecutively and shall be preserved for the same length of time as the prescription book.
Section 33. Inhibition against use of cipher or unusual terms in prescriptions and prescription
switching. No pharmacist shall compound or dispense prescriptions, recipes or formulas which are
written in ciphers, codes or secret keys or in which they are employed unusual names of drugs
which differ from the names ordinarily used for such drugs in standard pharmacopoeias or
formularies.

No pharmacist dispensing or compounding prescriptions shall substitute the drug or drugs called for
in the prescription with any other drug or substance or ingredient without prior consultation with, and
a written consent of, the person prescribing.

Section 34. Provisions relative to dispensing of violent poisons. Every pharmacist who dispenses,
sells or otherwise delivers any of the violent poisons intended for medicinal use, to wit: arsenical
preparations, phosphorus; corrosive sublimate; atropine, strychnine, or any of their salts, hycocyanic
acid or any of its salts; oil of bitter almonds containing hydrocyanic acid or prassic acid; oil of
mirbane (Nitro-benzene); and such other poisonous substances which may from time to time be
classified under this category by the Food and Drug Administration; shall do so only upon
prescription of a duly licensed physician, dentist or veterinarian. He shall make or cause to be made
in a separate book, kept for the purpose, an entry stating the date of each sale and the name and
address of the purchaser, the name and quantity of the poison sold and the purpose for which it was
claimed to be purchased, before delivering it to the purchaser.

No prescription, the prescribed dose of which contains a dangerous quantity of poison, shall be filled
without first consulting the prescribing authority and verifying the prescription. The pharmacist before
delivery of such poison to the purchaser shall acquaint the latter of its poisonous character.

The pharmacist shall also affix to every box, bottle or other package containing any dangerous or
poisonous drug, another label of red paper upon which shall be printed in large letters the word
"Poison" and a vignette representing a skull and bones before delivering it to the purchaser.

No poison specified in this section shall be sold or otherwise delivered to any person less than
eighteen years of age or who is mentally deranged or under the influence of liquor or one who is
apparently addicted to opiate and other habit-forming drugs.

The books kept for the purpose of recording the sale of violent poisons shall be open at all times to
the inspection of the proper authorities, and every such book shall be preserved for at least five
years after the last entry in it has been made.

Should any of the poisons above-stated be intended for purposes other than medicinal, the same
may be sold without a prescription by the pharmacist but the other requirements of this section must
be complied with.

Section 35. Provisions relative to dispensing of less violent poisons. Every pharmacist who
dispenses, sells or delivers any poison which is less violent in category as classified by the Food and
Drug Administration may do so even without the prescription of a physician and its sale may be
recorded in the poison book. The other requirements as provided for in Section thirty-four hereof,
however, shall be complied with.

Section 36. Receptacle for poisonous drugs. The poisonous drugs specified in Section thirty-four
and thirty-five hereof shall be kept in a cabinet to be provided in every pharmacy carrying such drugs
in stock and the same shall be kept securely-locked when not in use.
Section 37. Provisions relative to dispensing of abolifecients or anti-conceptional substances and
devices. No drug or chemical product or device capable of provoking abortion or preventing
conception as classified by the Food and Drug Administration shall be delivered or sold to any
person without a proper prescription by a duly licensed physician.

The pharmacist in charge of a drug store or pharmacy after filling a prescription containing abortive
or anti-conceptional substance or devices shall record in a separate register book for abortives and
anti-conceptionals, the following data;

(a) Number and date of the prescription;

(b) Name and address of the physician;

(c) Name, quantity and manufacturer of the drug;

(d) Name and address of the purchaser;

(e) Date of filling the prescription; and

(f) Signature of the pharmacist filling the prescription.

Section 38. Provisions relative to dispensing of potent drugs. Every pharmacist who dispenses, sells
or delivers any drug, which falls under the classification of the Food and Drug Administration as
potent drugs shall do so only upon prescription of a duly licensed physician, dentist or veterinarian.

Section 39. Requirements for the opening and operation of drugstores and pharmacies. The
minimum requirements necessary for the opening and operation of drugstores and pharmacies shall
be in accordance with the rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Food and Drug
Administration in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Only natural-born Filipino citizens who
are registered pharmacists can apply for the opening of a retail drugstore.

Section 40. Penal provisions. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of Sections twelve,
twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-seven and twenty-nine of this Act or any person who
shall make false representation to procure a registration certificate as pharmacist for himself or for
another; or any person who shall allow anyone in his employ who is not a registered pharmacist to
engage in the practice of pharmacy; or any person who shall falsely display within the establishment
the certificate of registration of a pharmacist who is not actually and regularly employed therein as
such or to act as a dummy for any alien or an unqualified person for the purpose of opening and
operating a retail drugstore; shall, upon conviction thereof, be sentenced to a fine of not less than
one thousand pesos but not exceeding four thousand pesos or to an imprisonment of not less than
six months and one day but not more than four years, in the discretion of the court.

Section 41. Other penalties. Any pharmacist who shall violate any of the provisions of Sections
twenty-eight, thirty, thirty-one, thirty-two, thirty-three, thirty-four, thirty-five, thirty-seven and thirty-
eight of this Act or any pharmacist after his certificate of registration has been lawfully suspended or
revoked, who continues to engage in the practice of pharmacy, shall, upon conviction thereof, be
sentenced to a fine of not less than one hundred pesos but shall not exceed five hundred pesos or to
an imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than four months, in the discretion of the
court.
Any person other than citizens of the Philippines having been found guilty of any violation as
provided for in this and the preceding section shall, after having paid the fine or having served his
sentence or both when so required be also subject to deportation.

Section 42. Definition of terms. For purposes of this Act, the term (a) "Pharmacy" or "Drug Store"
means a place or establishment where drugs, chemical products, active principles of drugs,
pharmaceuticals, proprietary medicines or pharmaceutical specialties, devices, and poisons are sold
at retail and where medical, dental and veterinary prescriptions are compounded and dispensed.

(b) "Drug or Pharmaceutical Laboratory" or Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Laboratory"

means an establishment where pharmaceuticals, proprietary medicines or pharmaceutical
specialties are prepared, compounded, standardized and distributed or sold.

(c) "Wholesaler" means and includes every person who acts as a jobber, merchant, broker or
agent, who sells or distributes for resale pharmaceuticals, proprietary medicines or
pharmaceutical specialties.

(d) "Person" means and includes an individual, partnership, corporation or association.

(e) "Drug" means (1) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official
Hemeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States or official National Formulary, or any of
their supplements; (2) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment,
or prevention of disease in man or animals; (3) articles (other than food) intended to effect
the structure or any function of the body of man or animals; and (4) articles intended for use
as a component of any articles specified in clauses (1), (2), or (3), but not include devices or
their components, parts or accessories.

(f) "Pharmaceuticals", "Proprietary Medicines" or "Pharmaceutical Specialties" means any

drug, preparation or mixture of drugs marked under a trade name and intended for the cure,
mitigation or prevention of disease in man or animals.

(g) "Device" means instruments, apparatus or contrivances including their components, parts
and accessories, intended (1) for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or
prevention of disease in man or animals; or

(2) to effect the structure or any function of the body of man or animals.

(h) "Biologic Products" are viruses, sera, toxins and analogous products used for the
prevention or cure of human diseases.

(i) "Poison" is any drug, active principle, or preparation of the same, capable of destroying
life or seriously endangering health when applied externally to the body or introduced
internally in moderate doses.

(j) "Cipher" means a method of secret writing that substitutes other letters or characters for
the letter intended or transposes the letter after arranging them in blocks or squares.

(k) "Code" means a system of words or other symbols arbitrarily used to represent words.

(l) "Secret Keys" means a characteristics style or symbols kept from the knowledge of others
or disclosed confidentially to but one of few.
Section 43. Final Provisions. To carry out the provisions of this Act, there is hereby authorized to be
appropriated, out of any funds in the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of thirty
thousand pesos within the fiscal year of the approval hereof. Thereafter, such funds as are
necessary for the maintenance and operation of the Board of Pharmacy and of the Council of
Pharmaceutical Education shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act.

Section 44. Repealing clause. The following are hereby repealed: Sections seven hundred
seventeen to seven hundred fifty-seven inclusive, Sections two thousand six hundred seventy-five to
two thousand six hundred seventy-seven inclusive of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended;
and such other laws or part of laws, executive orders, administrative orders; circulars, regulations
and memoranda inconsistent or incompatible with this Act.

Section 45. Separability of provisions. If any part, section or provision of this Act shall be held invalid
or unconstitutional, no other part, section or provision thereof shall be affected thereby.

Section 46. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: June 21, 1969

 An Act Requiring the Registration of Medical Technologists, Defining Their Practice, and for Other Purposes

Republic Act No. 5527

Congress of the Philippines

21 June 1969

Philippine Medical Technology Act of 1969

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress

assembled:

SECTION 1. Title.— This Act may be also cited as the Philippine Medical Technology Act of
1969.

SECTION 2. Definition of Terms.— As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean:

(a) “Medical Technology”.— An auxiliary branch of laboratory medicine which deals with
the examination by various chemical, microscopic, bacteriologic and other medical
laboratory procedures or technic which will aid the physician in the diagnosis, study and
treatment of disease and in the promotion of health in general.

(b) “Pathologist”.— A duly registered physician who is specially trained in methods of

laboratory medicine, of the gross and microscopic study and interpretation of tissues,
secretions and excretions of the human body and its functions in order to diagnose disease,
follows its course, determine the effectivity of treatment, ascertain cause of death and
advance medicine by means of research.

(c) “Medical Technologist”.— A person who engages in the work of medical technology
under the supervision of a pathologist or licensed physician authorized by the department
of health in places where there is no pathologist and who having passed a prescribed
course (Bachelor of Science in Medical Technology/Bachelor of Science in Hygiene) of
training and examination is registered under the provision of this Act.
 (d) “Medical Technician”.— A person who not being a graduate of Bachelor of Science in
Medical Technology/Bachelor of Science in Hygiene, but having passed the corresponding
civil service examination, performs the work of medical technology under the supervision
of a registered medical technologist and/or qualified pathologist.

(e) “Accredited Medical Technology Training Laboratory”.— A clinical laboratory, office,

agency, clinic, hospital sanitarium duly approved by the Department of Health or its
authorized agency.

(f) “Recognized School of Medical Technology”.— Any school, college or university which
offers a course in Medical Technology approved by the Department of Education in
accordance with the requirements under this Act, upon recommendation of the council of
medical technology education.

(g) “Council”.— The council of medical technology education established under this Act.

(h) “Board”.— The Board of Examiners for Medical Technology established under this
Act.

SECTION 3. Council of Medical Technology Education, Its Composition.— There is hereby

established a Council of Medical Technology Education, hereafter referred to as Council, which
shall be composed of the Secretary of Education or Director of Private Education as Chairman,
the Director of the Bureau of Research and Laboratories of the Department of Health as Vice-
Chairman, and the Chairman and two members of the Board of Medical Technology, the dean of
the Institute of Hygiene of the University of the Philippines, a representative of the deans or heads
of the private schools of medical technology, and the presidents of the Philippine Association of
Medical Technologists and the Philippine Society of Pathologists, as members.

SECTION 4. Compensation and Traveling Expenses of Council Members.— The chairman and
members of the Council shall be entitled to a twenty-five pesos per diem for every meeting actually
attended: Provided, That the number of meetings authorized with a per diem shall not exceed two
in a month: And Provided, further, That officials receiving regular salaries from the Government
shall not receive per diem. In addition the chairman and members of the council shall be entitled
to traveling expenses in connection with their official duties.

SECTION 5. Functions of the Council of Medical Technology Education.— The functions of the
Council shall be:
 (a) To recommend the minimum required curriculum for the course of medical technology.

(b) To determine and prescribe the number of students to be allowed to take up the
medical technology course in each school, taking into account the student-instructor ratio
and the availability of facilities for instruction.

(c) To approve medical technology schools meeting the requirements and recommend
closure of those found to be substandard.

(d) To require all medical technology schools to submit an annual report, including the
total number of students and instructors, a list of facilities available for instruction, a list of
their recent graduates and new admissions, on or before the month of June.

(e) To inspect, when necessary, the different medical technology schools in the country
in order to determine whether a high standard of education is maintained in said institutions.

(f) To certify for admission into an undergraduate internship students who have
satisfactorily completed three years of the medical technology course or its equivalent and
to collect from said students the amount of five pesos each which money accrue to the
operating fund of the council.

(g) Formulate and recommend approval of refresher course for applicants who shall have
failed the Board Examination for the third time.

(h) To promulgate and prescribe and enforce necessary rules and regulations for the
proper implementation of the foregoing functions.

SECTION 6. Minimum Required Course.— The medical technology course shall be at least four
years, including a 12-month satisfactory internship in accredited laboratories, and shall include
the following subjects:

English Biochemistry

Spanish Gross Anatomy

Social Science Histology

General Zoology Physiology

 Botany Clinical Parasitology

Mathematics General Pathology

College Physics Microbiology

General Statistics
Chemistry

Qualitative Clinical Laboratory Methods including hematology, serology, blood banking, clinical microscopy,
Chemistry applied microbiology, and parasitology, histopathologic techniques, and cyto-technology)

Quantitative
Chemistry

The Council is hereby authorized, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Education to
change, remove from or add to the subjects listed above as the needs and demands of progress
in the science of medical technology may require.

SECTION 7. Board of Examiners for Medical Technology.— There is hereby created a Board
of Examiners for Medical Technology which shall hereafter be referred to as the Board composed
of a chairman who is a pathologist appointed by the President of the Philippines from a list
submitted by the Philippine Society of Pathologists and two members who are registered medical
technologists appointed by the President of the Philippines from among a list submitted by the
Philippine Association of Medical Technologists each one to serve a term of three
years: Provided, That the first Board to be created one member who shall act as chairman shall
serve for three years, one member for two years and the third member for one year:
And Provided, Further, That the first members of the Board of Examiners for Medical Technology
shall be issued a certificate of registration as Medical Technologist without prior examination in
accordance with the provisions of this Act. No member shall be allowed more than one
reappointment. The President of the Philippines shall fill the vacancy that may occur but the
appointee shall serve only the unexpired term of the incapacitated member.

SECTION 8. Qualifications of Examiners.— No person shall be appointed a member of the

Board of Examiners for Medical Technology unless he or she (1) is a Filipino citizen; (2) is of good
moral character; (3) is a qualified pathologist or duly registered medical technologist of the
Philippines with the degree of Bachelor of Science in Medical Technology/Bachelor of Science in
Hygiene; (4) has been in the practice of laboratory medicine or medical technology for at least ten
years prior to his appointment, and (5) is not a member of the faculty of any medical technology
school, or have any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in such institution: Provided, However,
That for the first three years following the approval of this Act, the requirement mentioned in
number four (4) shall be reduced to five years.

SECTION 9. Executive Officer of the Board.— The Commissioner of Civil Service shall be the
Executive Officer of the Board, and shall conduct the examinations given by it. The Secretary of
the Board Examiners appointed in accordance with Section ten of Act Numbered Four Thousand
Seven, as amended, shall also be the Secretary of the Board. He shall keep a register of all
persons to whom certificates of registration have been granted.

SECTION 10. Compensation of Members of the Board of Examiners for Medical

Technology.— Each member of the Board shall receive a sum of ten pesos for each applicant
examined and five pesos for each applicant granted a certificate of registration without
examination.

SECTION 11. Functions and Duties of the Board.— The Board is vested with authority and
required, conformably, with the provisions of this Act, to:

(a) Administer the provisions of this Act;

(b) Administer oaths in connection with the administration of this Act;

(c) Issue, suspend and revoke certificates of registration for the practice of medical
technology;

(d) Look into conditions affecting the practice of medical technology in the Philippines
and, whenever necessary, adopt such measures as may be deemed proper for the
maintenance of good ethics and standards in the practice of medical technology;

(e) Investigate such violations of this Act or of the rules and regulations issued thereunder
as may come to the jurisdiction of the Board and, for this purpose issue subpoena and
subpoena duces tecum to secure appearance of witnesses and promulgations of
documents in connection with charges presented to the Board; and

(f) Draft such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of
this Act: Provided, That the same shall be issued only after the approval of the President of
the Philippines.
 SECTION 12. Removal of Board Members.— Any member of the Board may be removed by the
President of the Philippines for neglect of duty, incompetency, malpractice or unprofessional,
unethical, immoral or dishonorable conduct after having been given opportunity to defend himself
in a proper administrative investigation; Provided, That during the process of investigation, the
President shall have the power to suspend such member under investigation and appoint a
temporary member in his place.

SECTION 13. Accreditation of Schools of Medical Technology and of Training

Laboratories.— Department of Education shall approve schools of medical technology in
accordance with the provisions of this Act. The Department of Health or its authorized agency
shall upon recommendation of the Council of Medical Technology Education approve laboratories
for accreditation as training laboratories for Medical Technology students or postgraduate trainees
upon satisfactory evidence that said laboratories possess qualified personnel and properly
equipped to carry out laboratory procedures commonly required in the following fields:
bacteriology, serology, parasitology, hematology, and biochemistry, and that the scope of
activities of said laboratory offer sufficient training in said laboratory procedures.

SECTION 14. Inhibition Against the Practice of Medical Technology.— No person shall
practice or offer to practice medical technology as defined in this Act without having previously
obtained a valid certificate of registration from the Board provided that registration shall not be
required of the following:

(a) Duly registered physicians.

(b) Medical technologists from other countries called in for consultation or as visiting or
exchange professors to colleges or universities: Provided, That they are only practicing the
said function.

(c) Medical technologists in the service of the United States Armed Forces stationed in
the Philippines rendering services as such for members of the said forces only.

SECTION 15. Examination.— Except as otherwise specifically allowed under the provisions of
this Act, all applicants for registration as medical technologists shall be required to undergo a
written examination which shall be given by the Board annually in the greater Manila area, Cebu
and Davao during the month of August or September on such days and places as the Board may
designate. Written notices of such examination shall be published in at least three newspapers of
national circulation by the Secretary of the Board at least thirty days prior to the date of
examination.

SECTION 16. Qualification for Examination.— Every applicant for examination under this Act,
shall, prior to the date thereof, furnish the Board satisfactory proof that he or she:

(a) Is in good health and is of good moral character;

(b) Has completed a course of at least four years leading to the degrees of Bachelor of
Science in Medical Technology or Bachelor of Science in Hygiene conferred by a
recognized school, college or university in accordance with this Act and all other persons
having graduated from other paramedical professions who are actually performing medical
technology for the last five years prior to the enactment of this Act provided they meet the
minimum requirements mentioned in Section Six exceeding one year undergraduate
internship or practical training.

SECTION 17. Scope of Coverage & Examination.— The examination question shall cover the
following subjects with their respective relative weights:

Clinical Chemistry 2

Microbiology and Parasitology 2

Hematology 2

Blood Banking and Serology

Clinical Microscopy (Urinalysis and other body fluids) 1

Histopathologic Technique 1

The Board shall prepare the schedule of subjects for examination and to submit the same to
the Commissioner of Civil Service for publication at least four months before the date of
examination. The Board shall compute the general average of each examinee according to the
abovementioned relative weights of the subjects: Provided, However, That the Board may
change, add to or remove from the list of subjects or weights above, as progress in the science
of medical technology may require, subject to the prior approval of the council.
 SECTION 18. Report of Rating.— The Board shall, within one hundred and twenty days after
the date of completion of the examination, report the result thereof to the Commissioner of Civil
Service, who shall submit such result to the President of the Philippines for approval.

SECTION 19. Ratings in the Examination.— In order to pass the examination, a candidate must
obtain a general average of at least seventy-five per cent in the written test, with no rating below
fifty per cent in any of the major subjects: Provided, That the candidate has not failed in at least
sixty per cent of the subjects computed according to their relative weights. No further examination
will be given an applicant who has not qualified after three examinations, unless and until he shall
have completed 12 months refresher course in an accredited medical technology school or 12-
month postgraduate training in an accredited laboratory:

Provided, That graduate of paramedical professions other than Bachelor of Science in Medical
Technology/Bachelor of Science in Hygiene admitted to an examination under the provisions of
this Act shall not be given further examinations after his failure to qualify for the third time.

SECTION 20. Oath taking.— All successful examinees shall be required to take a professional
oath before the Board or before any person authorized to administer oaths prior to entering upon
the practice of medical technology in the Philippines.

SECTION 21. Issuance of Certificate of Registration.— Every applicant who has satisfactorily
passed the required examination, shall be issued a certificate of registration as Medical
Technologist: Provided, That no such certificate shall be issued to any successful applicant who
has not attained the age of twenty-one years. All certificates shall be signed by all the members
of the Board and attested by its Secretary. The duly registered medical technologist shall be
required to display his certificate of registration in the place where he works. Upon application
filed after the approval of this Act not later than ninety days after the Board shall have been fully
constituted, the Board shall issue a certificate of registration without examination to persons who
have been graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Hygiene and/or Bachelor of Science in Medical
Technology in duly recognized schools of medical technology in the Philippines or foreign
countries who have been in the practice of medical technology for at least three years at the time
of the passage of this Act in laboratories in the Philippines or in foreign countries duly accredited
by the Bureau of Research and Laboratories, Department of Health, and also to all other persons
having graduated from other paramedical professions who are already civil service eligible by
authority of the other Boards of profession and who are actually performing medical technology
practice for the last five years prior to the enactment of this Act.
 SECTION 22. Fees.— The Board shall charge each applicant for examination and registration
the sum of fifty pesos and for each certificate of registration issued without prior examination in
accordance with the provisions of this Act the sum of twenty five pesos; for issuance of a new
certificate to replace certificate lost, destroyed or mutilated, the Board shall charge the sum of ten
pesos. All such fees shall be paid to the disbursing officer of the Civil Service Commission who
shall pay from the receipts thereof, all authorized expenses of the Board including the
compensation of each member.

SECTION 23. Refusal to Issue Certificate.— The Board shall refuse to issue a certificate of
registration to any person convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction of any guilty of immoral
or dishonorable conduct, or of unsound mind, or incurable communicable disease, and in such
case shall give to the applicant a written statement setting forth the reason for its action, which
statement shall be incorporated in the record of the Board.

SECTION 24. Administrative Investigation-Revocation or Suspension of

Certificates.— Administrative investigations shall be conducted by at least two members of the
Board with one legal officer sitting during the investigation. The existing rules of evidence shall be
observed during all administrative proceedings, the respondents shall be entitled to be
represented by counsel or be heard in person, to have a speedy and public hearing, to confront
and cross-examine witnesses against him or her, and to all other rights guaranteed by the
Constitution.

The Board may, after giving proper notice and hearing to the party concerned reprimand an
erring medical technologist or revoke or suspend his certificate of registration for the causes
mentioned in the next preceding section or for causes enumerated in section twenty-nine (29) of
this Act, or for unprofessional conduct, malpractice, incompetency, or serious ignorance or gross
negligence in the practice of medical technology.

No penalty of revocation shall be imposed unless there is a unanimous vote of all the three
members of the Board. The Board may, by majority vote, impose the penalty of reprimand or
suspension, the latter however not to exceed two years.

When the penalty of suspension or revocation is imposed by the Board the medical technologist
shall be required to surrender his certificate of registration within thirty days after the decision
becomes final, under the pain of perpetual disqualification from the practice of medical technology
in the Philippines for inexcusable failure to do so. The suspension shall run from the date of such
surrender.

SECTION 25. Appeal.— The revocation or suspension of a certificate made by the Board shall
be subject to appeal to the Civil Service Commissioner whose decision shall become final thirty
days after its promulgation, unless the respondent within the same period has appealed to the
office of the President of the Philippines.

SECTION 26. Reinstatement, Reissue or Replacement of Certificates.— The Board may, upon
application and for reason deemed proper and sufficient, reissue any revoked registration
certificate. The suspension of a certificate of registration shall be automatically lifted upon the
expiration of the period of suspension and said certificate shall be re-issued to the medical
technologist concerned upon request without prejudice to further actions by the Board for violation
of the provisions of this Act or conditions imposed by the Board upon the medical technologist
during the period of suspension.

SECTION 27. Foreign Reciprocity.— No foreigner shall be admitted to examination, or be given

a certificate of registration or be entitled to any of the rights and privileges under this Act, unless
the country or state which he is a subject or a citizen permits Filipino Medical Technologists to
practice within its territorial limits on the same basis as the subjects or citizens of said country or
state.

SECTION 28. Roster of Medical Technologists.— (a) A roster of Medical Technologists shall be
prepared annually by the Secretary of the Board, commencing on the year following that in which
the Act shall become effective. The roster shall contain the name, address and citizenship of each
registered Medical Technologist, date of registration or issuance of certificate, and other data
which in the opinion of the Board are pertinent. The roster shall be open to public inspection, and
copies thereof shall be mailed to each person included therein, placed on file in the Office of the
President, furnished all Department Heads and all agencies, offices and instrumentalities of the
Department of Health and to such other offices, private or governmental, and to the public upon
request.

(b) Any medical technologist, even if duly registered, who shall practice medical
technology in the Philippines without the necessary supervision of a qualified pathologist or
physician authorized by the Department of Health;

(c) Any medical technologist, who shall knowingly make a fraudulent laboratory report;
 (d) Any duly registered medical technologist who shall refuse or fail, after due warning by
the Board to display his certificate or registration in the place where he works;

(e) Any person presenting or attempting to use as his own, the certificate of registration
of another;

(f) Any person who shall give any false or fraudulent evidence of any kind to the Board
member thereof in obtaining as certificate of registration a Medical Technologist;

(g) Any person who shall impersonate any registrant of like or the same name;

(h) Any person who shall attempt to use a revoked or suspended certificate of registration;

(i) Any person who shall in connection with his name or otherwise, assume use or
advertise any title or description tending to convey the impression that he is a Medical
Technologist without holding a valid certificate of registration;

(j) Any person who shall violate any provision of this Act; or

(k) Any person or corporate body who shall violate the rules and regulations of Board or
orders promulgated by it after having been duly approved and issued by the President of
the Philippines upon recommendation of the Commissioner of Civil Service for the purpose
of carrying out the provisions of this Act.

SECTION 29. Penal Provisions.— Without prejudice to the provision of the Medical Act of 1959
as amended, pertaining to illegal practice of Medicine, the following shall be punished by a fine of
not less than two thousand pesos nor more than five thousand pesos, or imprisonment for not
less than six months nor more than two years, or both in the discretion of the court:

(a) Any person who shall practice Medical Technology in the Philippines without being
registered or exempted from registration in accordance with the provisions of the Act;

(b) Any medical technologist, even if duly registered, who shall practice medical
technology in the Philippines without the necessary supervision of a qualified pathologist or
physician authorized by the Department of Health;

(c) Any medical technologist who shall knowingly made a fraudulent laboratory report;
 (d) Any duly registered medical technologist who shall refuse or fail, after due warning by
the Board to display his certificate of registration in the place where he works;

(e) Any person presenting or attempting to use as his own, the certificate of registration
of another;

(f) Any person who shall give any false or fraudulent device of any kind to the Board of
any member thereof obtaining a certificate of registration as Medical Technologist;

(g) Any person who shall impersonate any registrant of a fake or the same name;

(h) Any person who shall attempt to use a revoked or suspended certificate of registration;

(i) Any person who shall in connection with his name otherwise, assume, use or advertise
any title or description tending to convey the impression that he is a Medical Technologist
without holding a valid certificate of registration;

(j) Any person who shall violate any provision of this Act; or

(k) Any person or corporate body who shall violate the rules and regulations of Board or
orders promulgated by it after having been duly approved and issued by the President of
the Philippines upon recommendation of the Commissioner of Civil Service for the purpose
of carrying out the provisions of this Act.

SECTION 30. Separability Clause.— If any provision of this Act or the application of such
provision to any person or circumstance is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction,
the remainder of this Act or of the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances
shall not be affected by such declaration.

SECTION 31. Repealing Clause.— All Acts, executive orders, rules and regulations, or parts
thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed: Provided, However, That
nothing in this Act shall be construed as repealing or amending any portion of the Medical Act of
1959 (R.A. 2382, as amended by R.A. 4224), the Clinical Laboratory Act of 1966 (R.A. 4688), and
the Blood Banking Law of 1956 (R.A. 1517).

SECTION 32. Effectivity.— This Act shall take effect upon its approval. (Approved: June 21,
1969.)
 Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila

Twelfth Congress
Third Regular Session

Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-eight day of July, two thousand three.

Republic Act No. 9268 March 19, 2004

AN ACT TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE IN THE

PHILIPPINES, REPEALING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 382 AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress

assembled:

ARTICLE I
TITLE, POLICY AND DEFINITION OF TERMS

Section 1. Title. - This act shall be known as "The Philippine Veterinary Medicine Act of 2004."

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. - It shall be the policy of the State to upgrade the practice of
veterinary medicine for the purpose of protecting the animal population in the country through
safe and proper diagnosis, treatment and surgery of these animals. The state recognizes the
important role of veterinarians in nation building and promotes the sustained development of
veterinarians whose competence has been validated by honest and credible licensure
examination and whose standards of professionals practice and service are world-class and
internationally recognized and globally competitive.

SEC. 3. Objectives. - This Act provides for and shall govern:

(a) The administration and conduct of licensure examination, registration and licensing of
veterinarians;

(b) The supervision and regulation of the practice of veterinary medicine;

(c) The integration of veterinarians under an accredited veterinary professional

organization; and

SEC. 4. Definition of Terms.

(a) "Veterinarian" - is a natural person who has been registered and issued a valid
Certificate of Registration and Professional Identification Card by the Professional
Regulatory Board of Veterinary Medicine in accordance with this Act.
 (b) "Accredited Professional Organization" - refers to the professional organization of
veterinarians accredited by the Board and the Commission.

ARTICLE II
PRFESSIONAL REGULATORY BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE

SEC. 5. Composition of the Board. - There shall be created a Professional Regulatory Board
of Veterinary Medicine, hereafter referred as the Board, under the administrative supervision
and control of the PRC, hereinafter refer to as the commission, to be composed of the Chairman
and two (2) members, who shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines from among a
list of three (3) recommendees for each position submitted by the Commission from a list of five
(5) nominees for each position submitted by the accredited professional organization of
veterinarians.

SEC. 6. Qualification of Members of the Board. - The members of the Board must at the time
of nomination, recommendation, and appointments:

(a) be a Filipino citizen and resident of the Philippines for at least five (5) years
immediately preceding nomination, recommendation and appointment;

(b) be a good health, sound mind, good moral character and reputation and have been
convicted by final judgment of any crime involving moral turpitude;

(c) be a registered veterinarian and holder of a valid Certificate of Registration and a

valid Professional Identification Card;

(d) be a member of good standing of the accredited professional organization;

(e) not be a member of the faculty whether full time, part time or as lecturer, or any
school, college or university where a regular course in veterinary medicine is taught, or
be a member of a staff or reviewers in a review school or center, and not have any direct
or indirect pecuniary interest in any such institution;

(f) have practiced veterinary medicine for ten (10) years; and

(g) not be an officer of the accredited professional organization at eh time of nomination.

SEC. 7. Term of Office. - The chairperson and the two (2) members of the Board shall hold
office for a term of three (3) years from the date of appointments until their successors shall
have been appointed and duly qualified and may be reappointed once. The member serving the
last year of his/her term shall automatically become the chairperson of the Board. Vacancies in
the Board shall be filled f or the unexpired portion of the term only. Each member shall take the
proper oath prior to assumption of duty. Upon effectivity of this Act, the incumbents whose term
have not yet expired or who are holdover status shall be allowed to served the unexpired portion
of their terms.

SEC. 8. Powers, Functions, Duties and responsibilities of the Board. - The Board shall
have the following specific powers, functions, duties and responsibilities.
 (a) Enforce, Administer, and implement the provisions of this Act;

(b) Determine and evaluate the qualifications of the applicants for examination,
registration and for issuance of Certificate of Registration and Professional Identification
Cards and/or special permits pursuant to the provision of this Act;

(c) Prepare, adopt =, issue and amend the syllabi for the subjects in the licensure
examination, in consultation with the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), the
academe and the accredited professional organization;

(d) Register successful examinees in the licensure examination and issue the
corresponding Certificate of Registration;

(e) Enroll and registry book of veterinarian the names of successful examinees and to
issue Certificate of Registration and Professional Identification Card;

(f) Prescribe guidelines providing the continuing professional education (CPE) program
of registered and licensed veterinarians upon recommendation of the accredited
professional organization of veterinarians;

(g) Revoke Certificate of Registration of or suspend registered and licensed

veterinarians from the practice of his/her profession or to cancel special temporary
permits after due notice and hearing;

(h) Adopt and administer a Code of Ethics and a Code of Technical Standards fro
Doctors of Veterinary Medicines;

(i) Hear or investigate on its own or by delegation to a board member and a legal hearing
officer of the Commission cases arising from violations of this Act, the Rules and
Regulations, Code of Ethics and Code of Technical Standards issued thereafter and, in
connection therewith, to issue subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces terum to
alleged violators or witnesses to compel their attendance and the production of
documents;

(j) Recommend to the CHED, in coordination with accredited professional organization,

the prescribing, amending and/or revising of the collegiate course leading to the degree
of Doctor of Veterinary Medicine;

(k) Adopt the official seal of the Board;

(l) Promulgate such as rules and regulations or administrative orders and issuances as
may be necessary to properly and fully carry out the provisions of this Act; and

(m) Perform such other functions And duties as may be necessary to implement of this
Act.

The policies, resolutions, rules and regulations issued or promulgated by the Board shall be
subject to review and approval by the Commission. However, the Board decision's resolution or
orders which are not interlocutory, rendered in an administrative case, shall be subject to review
only if an appeal with the Commission. The decision of the Board and/or the Commission may
be appealed to the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Rules of Court.

SEC. 9. Compensation and Allowances of the Board. - The chairman and members of the
Board shall receive compensation and allowances comparable to the compensation and
allowances received by existing regulatory boards under the Commission as provided for the
General Appropriation Act.

SEC.10. Removal of the Board Members. - The chairman and members of the Board may be
removed from the office of the President of the Philippines, upon recommendation of the
Commission on the following grounds:

(a) Neglect of duty;

(b) Incompetence;

(c) Violation of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as "The Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees," and " The Code of Ethics of the
Veterinary Medicine Profession;"

(a) Manipulation or rigging of the veterinary licensure examination results;

(b) Disclosure of the examination questions or similar secret information;

(c) Tampering of the grades therein; and

(d) Final conviction by the court of criminal offense involving moral turpitude.

SEC. 11. Administrative Supervision of the Board, Custodian of its Records, Secretariat
and its Support Services. - The Board shall be under the administrative and executive
management of the Commission. All records of the Board, including the applications for
examination, minutes of deliberations, and administrative and other investigative cases shall be
under the custody of the Commission. The Commission shall designate the Secretary of the
Board and shall provide the secretariat and support services to implement the provision of this
Act.

SEC. 12. Annual Report. - The Board shall, after the close of the fiscal year, submit an annual
report to the Commission giving a detailed report of the activities and proceedings of the Board
during the year and embodying such recommendations as the Board may be desire to make.

ARTICLE III
EXAMINATION AND REGISTRATION OF VETERINARIANS

SEC. 13. Examination Required. - Except as otherwise specially allowed under this Act, all
applicant for registration for the practice of veterinary medicine shall be required to pass the
licensure examination to be given by the Board and the Commission in such places and dates
as the Commission may designate in accordance with Republic Act No. 8981, subject to
compliance with the requirements prescribed by the Commission.
SEC. 14. Subjects Covered by the Examination. - The subjects for the licensure examination,
shall cover the following:

(1) Veterinary Parasitology;

(2) Veterinary Pharmacology

(3) Veterinary Medicine (including Ethics, Surgery, Animal Welfare and Jurisprudence);

(4) Zootechnics (including Animal Behavior and Environmental Health);

(5) Veterinary Microbiology and Veterinary Public Health;

(6) Veterinary Physiology

(7) Veterinary Anatomy; and

(8) Veterinary Pathology.

The Board may be amend, modify or exclude any of the subjects in any syllabi and new ones as
technological need arises subject to the approval of the Commission.

SEC. 15. Qualifications of Applicant for Examination. - In order to qualify for examination, an
applicant shall establish to the satisfaction of the Board that:

(a) he/she is a citizen of the Philippines or a foreigner whose country has reciprocity with
the Philippines in the practice of veterinary medicine;

(b) he/she is in good health and moral character, and sound mind;

(c) he/she has not been convicted by the final judgment of an offense involving moral
turpitude by a competent court; and

(d) he/she is a holder of a Degree in Veterinary Medicine from a recognized accredited

College of Veterinary Medicine by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED).

SEC. 16. Report of Ratings. - The Board shall, with ten (10) days or earlier after the date of
examination, report the rating obtained by each candidate to the Commission for official release
and publication.

SEC. 17. Ratings in Examination. - In order to pass the examination, a candidate must obtain
a weighted average of at least seventy-five percent (75%) with no rating below sixty percent
(60%)in any subject. A candidate who obtains an average rating of seventy-five percent (75%)
or higher but gets a rating below sixty percent (60%) in any subject shall be allowed to take a re-
examination in only those subjects in which he/she obtained a rating below sixty percent (60%).
Should he/she fails to obtain seventy-five percent (75%) in reported subject or subjects, his/her
examination shall be considered as failed, and he/she shall be required to take all the subjects
in the next examination.
SEC. 18. Issuances of Certificate of Registration and Professional Identification Card. - A
certificate of Registration as a veterinarian shall be issued to an applicant who passes the
examination or who is registered without examination and shall indicate the full name of the
registrant, serial number, date of issuance bearing the signature of the Commission of
Chairperson and the chairman and members of the Board, with the official seal of the Board and
the Commission.

A Professional Identification Card bearing the registration number, date of issuance, expiry date,
duly signed by the Commission Chairperson, shall likewise be issued to every registrant who
has paid the prescribed fee.

SEC. 19. Fees for Examination, Registration of License. - Applicants for examination and
registration and for the issuance of a Professional Identification Card shall pay the fees
prescribed by the Commission.

SEC. 20. Oath. - All successful examinees and registrants without examination shall required to
take a oath before any member of the Board or any official authorized by the Commission or
any government official authorized by law before they start their practice.

SEC. 21. Refusal to Register. - The Board shall refuse to register an applicant as a
veterinarian and to issue his/her Certificate of Registration and Professional Identification Card if
he/she is convicted of any criminal offense involving moral turpitude, or found guilty of immoral
or dishonorable conduct, or he/she is declared by the court to be of unsound mind or have
violated the Animal Welfare Act. The Board shall furnish the applicant a written statement
settings forth the reasons for its action which shall be incorporated in the records of the Board.

SEC. 22. Revocation of Certificate of Registration and Suspension from the Practice of
Veterinary Medicine and Cancellation of Special Permit. - The Board shall have the power to
reprimand or suspend any person from the practice of the veterinary medicine, revoke the
Certification of Registration of any registered veterinarian, or cancel special permit issued upon
any of the following ground:

(a) any of the cause mentioned in this Section 21;

(b) unprofessional and unethical conduct;

(c) gross incompetence, gross negligence, gross ignorance or any other acts of
malpractice resulting in the disability, disfigurement or death of an animal;

(d) use of fraud, deceit, or false statements in obtaining registration, Certificate of

Registration, Professional Identification Card, or special permit;

(e) for chronic inebriety or habitual substance abuse;

(f) having professional connection with or lending one's name to an illegal practitioner of
veterinary medicine;

(g) fraud or dishonesty in applying, teaching or report on any laboratory test and
research findings.
 (h) False misleading advertising, having for its purpose or intent deception or fraud;

(i) Knowingly and deliberately concealing or failing of report as required by law, or

making false reports regarding the spread of contagious or infectious diseases;

(j) Violation of rules and regulations, Code of Ethics, Code Technical Standards and
other policies of the Board and the Commission issued pursuant to this Act; or

(k) Practicing his/her profession during the period of his/her suspension from the practice
of his profession.

SEC. 23. Rights of Respondent. - The respondent registered veterinarian shall entitled to
counsel, a speedy public hearing, and to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him.

SEC. 24. Administrative Investigation. - Within five (5) day after filing written charges under
oath, respondent registered veterinarian shall be furnished a copy thereof requiring him to
answer the same. The administrative investigation shall be conduced by the Board, or any of its
members as may be designated by the Commission, on cases involving the practice of the
profession: Provided, however, That the decision shall be promulgated by the Board.

SEC. 25. Appeal. - The decision of the denial or refusal to issue Certificate of Registration, the
revocation or suspension of Certificate of Registration, and the cancellation of special permit by
the Board shall be final unless appealed to the Commission within fifteen (15) day from receipt
of the decision. The decision of the Board and/or Commission may be appealed to the Court of
Appeals.

SEC. 26. Reinstatement. - Subject to the approval of the Commission, a person may apply to
the Board for reinstatement of his/her Certificate of Registration/professional license any time
after the expiration of one (1) year from the date of revocation of said certificate. The application
shall be writing and shall conform the requirements provided by the Board. No certificate shall
be reinstated unless the Board is satisfied that a good cause exists to warrant such
reinstatement.

SEC. 27. Indication of the Certificate of Registration and Professional Identification Card
and Professional Tax Receipt. - A registered and licensed veterinarian shall indicate his/her
Certificate of Registration/Professional Identification Card with date of issue and expiry, and the
Professional Tax Receipt number, on the prescription and other documents he/she signs, uses,
or issues in connection with the practice of his/her profession.

SEC. 28. Automatic Registration. - All veterinarians whose names appears in the roster of
veterinarians shall be automatically or ipso facto registered as veterinarians under this Act.

ARTICLE IV
PRACTICE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE

SEC. 29. Acts of Constituting Practice of Veterinary Medicine. - A person who is authorized
to practice veterinary medicine under this Act shall append or cause to be appended to his
name the letters D.V.M. (Doctor of Veterinary Medicine), V..M. D. (Veterinary Medical Doctor),
D.V.S.(Doctor of Veterinary of Science), the words "Veterinarian, " Veterinary Surgeon, "
Veterinary Dentist," or "Veterinary" any other initial or title implying qualification to practice, offer
or render, for a fee or otherwise, services such as:

(a) the examination and/or diagnosis, treatment, operation of, or the prescribing and
dispensing of any remedy for, any injury to or diseases, ailment or deformity of animals;

(b) attesting for official or commercial purpose to the health of any terrestrial, aquatic,
domestic or non-domestic animals;

(c) rendering veterinary technical services which indirectly affect the health and welfare
of human beings and animals;

(d) attesting to the fitness for human consumption of animal products and by-products;

(e) holding of any job or position in a public or private entity which requires knowledge of
or skill in veterinary medicine; or

(f) teaching or lecturing of veterinary clinical subjects in the curriculum of the degree in
veterinary medicine.

Provided, That the enumeration of the above practices or services in this Section shall not be
construed as excluding any other work requiring knowledge and application of professional
veterinary medicine which the Board may specify, upon the recommendation of accredited
professional organization in Veterinary Medicine.

Sec. 30. Unlawful Practice of Veterinary Medicine. - It shall be unlawful for any person to
practice veterinary medicine and any of its allied branches, including veterinary dentistry,
without a valid and existing Certificate of Registration and Professional Identification Card
issued by the Board of Veterinary Medicine and the Commission.

SEC. 31. Foreign Reciprocity. - No foreigner shall be admitted to the examination or be

registered as veterinarian under this Act unless he/she proves that the country of which he/she
is a citizen of, either permits Filipino citizens to practice veterinary medicine without need for
registration, without restriction, or allows them to practice after an examination on term of strict
and absolute quality with nationals of said country.

SEC. 32. Roster of Veterinarian. - The Board shall keep a roster of the names, residence and
office address of all registered and licensed veterinarians. The said roster shall be made
available to the public upon request and payment of prescribed fees thereof.

SEC. 33. Penal Provision. - The following persons shall be punished:

(a) Any person who shall practice veterinary medicine within the meaning of this Act
without a valid Certificate of Registration and a Professional Identification Card or a valid
special permit issued in accordance herewith;

(b) Any person presenting or using as his or her own Certificate of Registration or
Professional Identification Card of another
 (c) Any person who shall give any false or forged evidence of any kind to the Board or
the Commission in obtaining any of the foregoing documents;

(d) Any person who shall falsely impersonate any registrant with like or different name;

(e) Any registered and licensed veterinarian who shall abet or assist illegal practice of a
person who is not lawfully qualified to practice veterinary medicine;

(f) Any person who shall attempt to use a revoked or suspended Certificate of
Registration or any invalid or expired Professional Identification Card or a cancelled
special permit;

(g) Any person assuming, using or advertising any title, description tending to convey the
impression that he or she is a registered and licensed veterinarian; or

(h) Any person who violates any provision of this Act and its rules and regulations shall,
upon conviction be punished by a fine of not less than Fifty Thousand Pesos (50,000.00)
nor more than One Hundred Thousand Pesos (100,000.00) or by imprisonment of not
less than one (1) year nor more than five (5) years or both fine and imprisonment for
each and every offense at the discretion of the court.

SEC. 34. Enforcement. - The Commission shall implement the provision of this Act, enforce its
implementing rules and regulations as adopted by the Board and assist the Board in the
investigation of complaint against violators of this Act, its rules and regulations and other
policies of the Board.

The Commission shall call upon or request any department, instrumentality, office, bureau, or
agency of the government including local government units to render such assistance as it may
require to coordinate or cooperate in order to carry out, enforce or implement the provision of
this Act.

SEC. 35. Funding Provision. - The Chairperson of the PRC shall immediate include in the
Commission's programs the implementation of this Act, the funding of which shall be included in
the annual General Appropriate Act.

SEC. 36. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - Within sixty (60) days after the effectivity of
this Act, subject to the approval of the Commission, the Board in coordination with the
accredited professional organization, shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to
implement the provisions of this Act, which shall be effective after fifteen (15) days following its
publication in the Official Gazette or newspaper of general circulation.

SEC. 37. Separability Clause. - If any part of this Act is declared unconstitutional, the
remaining parts not affected thereby shall continue to be valid and operational.

SEC. 38. Repealing Clause. - Republic Act No. 382 and all other laws, decrees, orders,
circulars, rules and regulations, and other issuances, and part thereof which are inconsistent
with this Act are hereby superseded, repealed, amended, or modified accordingly.
SEC. 39. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect thirty (30) days after its publication in the
Official Gazette or in any newspaper of general circulation.

Approved,

FRANKLIN DRILON JOSE DE VENECIA JR.

President of the Senate Speaker of the House of
Representatives

This Act which is a consolation of House Bill No. 6002 and Senate Bill No. 2578 was finally
passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate on January 20, 2004 and January 19,
2004, respectively.

OSCAR G. YABES ROBERTO P. NAZARENO

Secretary of Senate Secretary General
House of Represenatives

Approved: March 19, 2004

GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
President of the Philippines
 An Act Creating the Board of Examiners for Physical Therapists and Occupational Therapists

Republic Act No. 5680

Congress of the Philippines

21 June 1969

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress

assembled:

SECTION 1. Short title of Act.— This Act shall be known as the Philippine Physical and
Occupational Therapy Law.

SECTION 2. Definition of Terms.— As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean:

(a) Physical therapy is the art and science of treatment by means of therapeutic
exercises, heat, cold, light, water, manual manipulation, electricity, and other physical
agents.

(b) Physical therapy technician is a person, who not having acquired a bachelor’s degree
in Physical Therapy is qualified through in-service training and practical experience to assist
in the application of physiotherapeutic procedures and to undertake specific assignments
as directed by a qualified physical therapist in carrying out the prescription of a licensed
physician. Such assignments shall be confined within the limits of a hospital or institution of
employment.

(c) Rehabilitation medicine, at the patient level, is the “clinical management of the
problems associated with disability, with the objective of improving to the maximum level
the physical, socio-economic and physiological functioning of a disabled individual. Medical
rehabilitation is an integrated part of the total medical care. Total rehabilitation is best
achieved through the coordinated work of various health disciplines like medicine,
psychology, social work, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and hearing,
nursing, vocational evaluation, dietetics, and special education.”
 (d) Physical therapist is a person legally qualified and licensed to practice physical
therapy under this Act.

(e) Physiatrist is a legally qualified and licensed physician specializing in the practice of
rehabilitation medicine.

(f) Occupational therapy is a paramedical discipline concerned with the administration of

medically prescribed treatment, in the form of supervised activity, to persons disabled by
disease or injury. The objective of occupational therapy is to contribute to the development
of the disabled person’s independence, to improve his emotional, social, and physical well-
being and his ability to care for himself both at home and on the job, and to begin early
evaluations and experimentation for future job training and employment.

Occupational therapy may be prescribed by a general medical practitioner or a specialist

in any of the recognized branches of medicine and is administered under the direction of a
registered occupational therapist.

(g) Occupational therapists is a legally qualified person licensed to practice occupational

therapy under this Act and who by accepted academic training and professional clinical
experience possesses the knowledge and skills to achieve the objectives as defined and
set by the occupational therapy profession. The occupational therapist functions through
the use of the basic methods, approaches and procedures of occupational therapy
(creative, manipulative, educational, pre-vocational evaluation and self-care activities)
which are designed to assess and develop the actual and potential abilities of the individual.

The occupational therapist plans, organizes, evaluates, and participates in a medically

oriented treatment program to assist the disabled person towards physical independence,
productivity, and constructive personal or social relationship.

The occupational therapist functions in general and special hospitals, rehabilitation and
welfare centers, pediatric clinics, psychiatric clinics, specialized schools, geriatric
institutions, home care programs, and work-adjustment units.

(h) Occupational therapy technician or assistant is a person who, not having acquired a
bachelor’s degree in occupational therapy, is qualified, as determined by a bona fide
national professional association of occupational therapists in the Philippines through in-
service training and practical experience, to function as an assistant to and under the direct
 supervision of an occupational therapist to assist in rehabilitating patients in hospitals and
similar institutions.

(i) Disability is a loss or reduction of a person’s capacity to effectively cope with the
demands of his environment as a result of disease or injury, including birth trauma.

SECTION 3. Board of Examiners for Physical Therapists and Occupational

Therapists.— There is hereby created a Board of Examiners for Physical Therapists and
Occupational Therapists, hereinafter called the Board, to be composed of a chairman and four
members who shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines with the consent of the
Commission of Appointments. The chairman shall be a physiatrist and four members shall be two
professionally qualified occupational therapists and two professionally qualified physical
therapists. The physiatrist shall be appointed from lists of qualified physiatrists, submitted by the
society of physical medicine and rehabilitation and the occupational therapists and physical
therapists by their respective bona fide national professional organization or association and
submitted to the President of the Philippines through the Commissioner of Civil Service.
Succeeding Boards shall consist of a chairman who shall be a physiatrist recommended and
appointed as hereinabove stated, two members who shall be registered physical therapists
recommended by the Philippine Physical Therapy Association, and two members who shall be
registered occupational therapists who shall be recommended by the Occupational Therapy
Association of the Philippines Incorporated. The chairman and members of the board shall be
appointed within six months upon the approval of this Act.

SECTION 4. Qualifications of Board Members.— The chairman and members of the Board, at
the time of their appointment, shall each be:

(a) A citizen and resident of the Philippines for at least five years;

(b) At least thirty-five years of age if he is a chairman, or thirty years of age if he is a

member;

(c) Of good moral character and must not have been convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude;

(d) A physiatrist if he is the chairman, or a holder of a bachelor’s degree in physical

therapy or occupational therapy with at least five years experience as a physical therapist
or occupational therapist as the case may be; and
 (e) Not a member of the faculty of any school, college or university conferring a bachelor’s
degree in physical therapy or occupational therapy as a major study at the time of his
appointment nor have any pecuniary interest, directly or indirectly, in any such
institution: Provided, That this subparagraph shall not be applicable to the chairman and
members of the first Board.

SECTION 5. Powers and Duties of the Board.— The Board shall have the following powers and
duties:

(a) To issue, suspend, revoke, or re-issue any certificate of registration for the practice of
physical therapy or occupational therapy as defined in this Act;

(b) To study, promote and improve the conditions of the practice of physical therapy and
occupational therapy in the Philippines;

(c) To give examinations to applicants for the practice of physical therapy and
occupational therapy in accordance with the provisions of this Act;

(d) To look into the conditions affecting the practice of physical therapy and occupational
therapy in the Philippines and, whenever necessary, adopt such measures as may be
proper for the maintenance of good ethics and high professional standard in the practice of
such professions;

(e) To study the condition affecting physical therapy and occupational therapy education;
to study and examine the facilities and prescribe the basic curricula of any school, college
or university seeking permission to open or offering physical therapy or occupational
therapy program or course; and to require the employment of qualified members of the
faculty in such educational institutions. No school, college or university shall be authorized
to offer courses in physical therapy or occupational therapy without the favorable written
recommendation of the Board;

(f) To exercise such other powers, functions and duties as may be necessary to carry into
effect the purposes of this Act and to maintain an efficient, ethical, moral and professional
standard in the practice of physical and occupational therapy in the Philippines.

SECTION 6. Term of Office of Board Members.— The Chairman and members of the Board
shall hold office for a term of three years and until their successors shall have been appointed
and qualified: Provided, That of the first Board, two members, a physical therapist and an
occupational therapist, shall hold office for a term of two years and the other two members
belonging to the same two professions shall hold office for a term of three years. Any vacancy in
the Board for any cause other than the expiration of the term shall be filled by appointment until
the expiration of the term of the member to be replaced.

SECTION 7. Removal of Members.— Any member of the Board may be removed by the
President of the Philippines for neglect of duty, incompetence, malpractice, or unprofessional,
unethical immoral or dishonorable conduct after having been given the opportunity to defend
himself in a proper administrative investigation: Provided, That pending the final disposition of the
case against him, a member may be suspended by the President and another appointed to fill the
temporary vacancy in the Board.

SECTION 8. Executive Officer of the Board.— The Commissioner of Civil Service shall be
executive officer of the Board, and shall conduct the examination given by it according to the rules
and regulations promulgated by him and approved by the President. The Secretary of the Board
of examiners appointed in accordance with Section ten of Republic Act Numbered Four thousand
seven, as amended, shall be the Secretary of the Board. All records of administrative proceedings
and investigations of the Board shall be kept by the Civil Service Commission.

The Secretary of the Board shall keep separate registers of all persons to whom certificates of
registration for the practice of physical therapy and occupational therapy, respectively, have been
issued. Such registers shall contain the name and sex of the physical therapist or the occupational
therapist registered therein and the name of the school, college or university from which he
graduated or in which he studied. He shall keep such register up to date.

SECTION 9. Compensation of Board Members.— The members of the Board shall each receive
as compensation the sum of ten pesos for each applicant examined. Any member of the Board
who is in the service of the Government shall receive the compensation herein provided in addition
to his salary.

SECTION 10. Rules and Regulations.— Subject to approval of the President of the Philippines
and with the advice of the Commissioner of Civil Service, the Board shall adopt rules and
regulations to carry out the provisions of this Act and shall set ethical and professional standards
for the practice of physical therapy and occupational therapy in the Philippines.
 SECTION 11. Annual Report.— The Board shall submit an annual report to the President of the
Philippines and the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives after
the close of each fiscal year, giving a detailed account of the proceedings of the Board during the
year and embodying such recommendations as the Board may desire to make.

SECTION 12. Inhibition Against the Practice of Physical Therapy and Occupational
therapy.— No person shall practice or offer to practice physical therapy or occupational therapy
in the Philippines as defined in this Act, without the prescription of a duly registered physician and
a valid certificate of registration as a physical therapist or an occupational therapist, as the case
may be, issued by the Board of Examiners for Physical Therapists and Occupational Therapists.

A person shall be deemed to be practicing physical therapy within the meaning of this Act, who
for a free or other consideration applies or advises the use of heat, cold, light, electricity or other
means for the treatment or prevention of disorders of neuro-muscular or musculo-skeletal
systems of the human body or subject a patient to passive mobilization of physical rehabilitation
procedures repeatedly.

A person shall be deemed to be practicing occupational therapy within the meaning of this Act
who, for a free or other consideration, applies or advises the use of occupational therapy treatment
media as herein defined, or other occupational means for the treatment or prevention of disorders
of the physical or psychological formation of the human body, or subjects a patient to occupational
therapy procedures repeatedly.

SECTION 13. Exemptions.— Nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply or affect the practice
of (a) any registered physician; (b) any physical therapy or occupational therapy student as part
of their undergraduate training in an approved school, college or university for medical therapy or
occupational therapy, as the case may be; (c) all physical therapists who are already in the
government service who become eligible by virtue of the testimonial examination given by the
Civil Service Commission on December twenty-nine, nineteen hundred and sixty-seven in the City
of Manila.

SECTION 14. Holding of Examinations.— Except as otherwise specifically provided, all

applicants for registration for the practice of physical therapy in the Philippines shall be given by
the Board on the first Saturday of June and December of each year, and for the practice of
occupational therapy one week thereafter, at the City of Manila or at such other places as may be
deemed necessary or expedient by the Board, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of
Civil Service and the President of the Philippines.

SECTION 15. Qualification of Applicants.— In order to be admitted to the physical therapists’

examination or the occupational therapists’ examination, as the case may be, an applicant must,
at the time of the filing of his or her application, establish to the satisfaction of the Board that:

(a) He is a citizen of the Philippines, or if a foreigner, must prove that the country of which
he is a subject or citizen permits Filipino physical therapists or occupational therapists to
practice within its territorial jurisdiction on the same basis as the subjects or citizens of such
country;

(b) He is at least twenty-one years of age;

(c) He is of good health and of good moral character;

(d) He has finished a standard academic high school course or its equivalent in a school,
college or university legally established or duly recognized by the government;

(e) He has received a degree, if he is an applicant for the physical therapy examination,
in Physical Therapy from a school of physical therapy duly recognized by the
Government: Provided, That such educational institution offers at least the following
academic subjects prior to the admission in the main physical therapy course, namely,
English, Mathematics, Speech, Political Science Social Science, Humanities, Psychology,
Spanish, Physics, Zoology and Chemistry: Provided, Further, That such educational
institution offers at least the following academic subjects in the main therapy course,
namely: Anatomy Physiology, Applied Kinesiology, Introduction to Nursing, Theory and
Practice of Massage, Electrotherapy, Prosthetics, Splinting, Bandaging and Plasterwork,
Exercise Therapy, General Medical and Surgical Conditions, Neurological and Orthopedic
Conditions, Principles of Rehabilitation, Pathology, Proprioceptive Neuromuscular
Facilitation, Selected Medical and Surgical Conditions, Administration and Ethics, Medical
Psychology; or

He has received a degree, if he is an applicant for the occupational therapy examination,

in Occupational Therapy or any other title of equivalent standard from a school of
occupational therapy duly recognized by the Government: Provided, That such educational
institution offers at least the following academic subjects prior to admission in the main
 occupational therapy course, namely, English, Spanish, Humanities, Zoology, Chemistry,
Sociology, Philippine History and Works of Rizal, Mathematics: Provided, Further, That
such educational institution offers at least the following academic subjects in the main
occupational therapy course, namely. Biological Sciences consisting of Human Anatomy
and Physiology, Neuro-anatomy and Neurophysiology, and Kinesiology (Principles of
Human Motion); Behavioral Sciences consisting of Human Development, Personality
Development, Group Processes, Interpersonal and Interprofessional Relationships;
Physical and Psychological Dysfunction Basic, General Pathology subjects including
General and Medical Conditions, Neurological and Orthopedic Conditions, Pediatrics and
Psychiatry; Occupational Therapy Skills consisting of Creative and Manual Arts, Vocational
and Avocational Activities, Daily Living Skills and Teaching Techniques; Occupational
Therapy Orientation Evaluation and Treatment, Principles of Physical and Psychosocial
Dysfunctions consisting of Organization and Administration, General Medical and Surgical
Conditions, Neurological and Orthopedic Conditions, Psychology, Prevocational;

(f) He has completed at least nine months of internship in Physical Therapy in an

adequate Physical Therapy Department of a hospital or clinic as certified by the Department
of Health; or has at least nine months clinical experience under the supervision of a
competent and duly registered occupational therapist in an accredited hospital or institution,
as the case may be. Clinical experience shall include the effective treatment of psychosocial
and physical dysfunctions of patients of wide age range and of both sexes.

SECTION 16. Scope of Examination.— The examinations for the practice of physical therapy
and occupational therapy in the Philippines shall consist of written and practical examinations of
the scope which shall be determined by the Board, taking into consideration the teaching plan of
the schools legally constituted in the Philippines. It shall be the duty of the Board to prepare the
schedule of subjects mentioned in subparagraph (e) of the preceding section of this Act, as well
as practical and clinical examinations of all candidates, and to submit the same to the President
of the Philippines for approval through the Commissioner of Civil Service, and to publish the same
as approved at least two months before the date of the examination wherein such subjects are to
be used. Any alteration or amendment that may be made in the schedule of subjects shall likewise
be approved by the President.

SECTION 17. Ratings in the Examination.— In order to pass the first examination, a candidate
must obtain a general rating of not below seventy-five per cent in the written examination with no
rating below sixty per cent. Any applicant who failed in the first examination but obtained seventy-
five per cent in each of at least five of the subjects may be permitted to take a second examination
within one year from the date of the first examination. In order to pass in the second examination,
the examinee must obtain a rating of not below seventy-five per cent in each of the subjects
repeated: Provided, That an applicant who failed in the set of subjects repeated in the second
examination must take a re-examination in all the subjects within one year from the date of the
second examination: Provided, Further, That should he still fail in the third re-examination, the
applicant shall be required to undertake a prescribed course of study and to show proof of the
completion of such course before he will be admitted to the fourth examination.

SECTION 18. Report of the Results of the Examinations.— The Board of Examiners for Physical
Therapists and Occupational Therapists shall, within one hundred twenty days after each
examination, report the ratings obtained by each candidate to the Commissioner of Civil Service,
who shall, with his recommendation, submit such ratings to the President of his approval.

SECTION 19. Issuance of Certificates.— Certificates of registration as physical therapist or

occupational therapist shall be issued to any applicant who passes the respective examination
after approval of his ratings by the President of the Philippines and upon payment of the required
fees. Every certificate of registration shall show the full name of the registrant, have a serial
number, bear the signatures of the members of the Board attested by the Secretary of the Board
and duly authenticated by the seal of the Board of Examiners for Physical Therapists and
Occupational Therapists.

The issuance of certificate of registration by the Board to the registrant shall evidence that the
person named therein is entitled to all rights and privileges of a registered physical therapist or a
registered occupational therapist, as the case may be, until the said certificate for just cause, is
revoked temporarily or cancelled. For all intents and purposes of this Act the members of the first
Board shall be considered as having duly qualified and registered as occupational therapists and
physical therapists as the case may be.

SECTION 20. Initial.— The initials PTRP and OTRP, which stands for Physical Therapist
Registered, Philippines and Occupational Therapist Registered, Philippines, may be added after
the name of the physical therapist or occupational therapist, as the case, may be, who
successfully passes the examination given by the Board.

SECTION 21. Registration by reciprocity.— Any physical therapist, physiatrist or occupational

therapist holding valid certificate of registration issued under the laws of a foreign country may
practice his profession in the Philippines without passing an examination given by the Board if the
requirements for the registration and licensing of a physical therapist, physiatrist of occupational
therapist in such foreign country are substantially the same as those provided for in this Act and
that the laws of such country or state grant the same privileges to physical therapists, physiatrists
and occupational therapists registered in the Philippines on the same basis as the subjects or
citizens of such country or state.

SECTION 22. Examination and Registration Fees.— Applicants for examination for the
profession physical therapy or occupational Therapy shall pay an examination fee of twenty-five
pesos each. Successful applicants shall pay a registration fee of ten pesos each.

SECTION 23. Refusal to Issue Certificate in Certain Cases.— The Board of Examiners for
Physical Therapists and Occupational Therapists shall not issue a certificate of registration to any
person convicted of any criminal offense involving moral turpitude by a court of competent
jurisdiction, and to any person guilty of illegal practice, unethical advertising, or other immoral or
dishonorable conduct. The Board shall give the applicant a written statement of the reason or
reasons for its action, which statement shall be incorporated in the records of the Board.

SECTION 24. Re-issuance of Revoked Certificate and Replacement of Lost Certificate.— The
Board may, for reason of equity and justice and upon proper application therefor, issue another
copy, original or duplicate, upon the payment of ten pesos, of a certificate which has been
revoked. A new certificate of registration to replace a lost, destroyed or mutilated certificate may
be issued subject to the rules of the Board and upon the payment of ten pesos.

SECTION 25. Professional Licenses Fees.— A registered physical therapist or occupational

therapist shall pay a professional license fee of fifty pesos per annum, payable annually or semi-
annually.

SECTION 26. All laws, parts of laws, orders, or ordinances, or regulations in conflict with the
provisions of this Act pertaining to physical or occupational therapeutic duty and practice shall be,
and are hereby repealed.

SECTION 27. Prohibition in the Practice of Physical Therapy or Occupational Therapy;

Penalty.— Any person who shall practice Physical Therapy or Occupational Therapy in the
Philippines within the meaning of this Act, without a valid certificate of registration issued by the
Board of Examiners for Physical Therapists and Occupational Therapists, or any person
presenting as his or her own the certificate of another, or any person giving any false or forged
evidence to the Board in order to obtain a certificate of registration or admission to an examination,
or any person assuming or advertising himself or herself as a registered physical therapist or
registered occupational therapist, or any person violating any provision of conduct shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than one
thousand pesos nor more than five thousand pesos or to suffer imprisonment for a period of not
less than one year nor more than five years, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion
of the Court.

SECTION 28. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: June 21, 1969.