You are on page 1of 19

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:
Uni
t
English

12

Latin

Mathematics, including Accounting


and Statistics

Philosophy, including Psychology and


Logic

12

Zoology and Botany

15

Physics

Chemistry

21

Library Science

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

1
LEGAL MEDICINEGELLIE VALLERIE T. LUMANTAS

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

2
LEGAL MEDICINEGELLIE VALLERIE T. LUMANTAS

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.

3
LEGAL MEDICINEGELLIE VALLERIE T. LUMANTAS

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
examination

75.00

For
preliminary
examination

physician
or

For registration as physician

final

40.00
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

4
LEGAL MEDICINEGELLIE VALLERIE T. LUMANTAS

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.

5
LEGAL MEDICINEGELLIE VALLERIE T. LUMANTAS

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
PRC
vs.
DeGuzman
Facts: The respondents are all graduates of the
Fatima College of Medicine, Valenzuela City,
Metro Manila. They passed the Physician
Licensure Examination conducted in February
1993 by the Board of Medicine (Board). Petitioner
Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) then
released their names as successful examinees in
the medical licensure examination. Shortly
thereafter, the Board observed that the grades of
the seventy-nine successful examinees from
Fatima College in the two most difficult subjects
in the medical licensure exam, Biochemistry (BioChem) and Obstetrics and Gynecology (OBGyne), were unusually and exceptionally high.
Eleven Fatima examinees scored 100% in BioChem and ten got 100% in OB-Gyne, another
eleven got 99% in Bio-Chem, and twenty-one
scored
99%
in
OB-Gyne.
For its part, the NBI found that the questionable
passing rate of Fatima examinees in the [1993]
Physician Examination leads to the conclusion
that the Fatima examinees gained early access to
the
test
questions.
Issue: Was the act pursuant to R.A. 2382 a valid
exercise
of
police
power
Ruling: Yes, it is true that this Court has upheld
the constitutional right of every citizen to select a
profession or course of study subject to a fair,
reasonable, and equitable admission and
academic requirements. But like all rights and
freedoms guaranteed by the Charter, their
exercise may be so regulated pursuant to the
police power of the State to safeguard health,
morals, peace, education, order, safety, and
general welfare of the people. Thus, persons who
desire to engage in the learned professions
requiring scientific or technical knowledge may
be required to take an examination as a
prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers.

[G.R. No. 144681. June 21, 2004]


PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION (PRC),
CHAIRMAN HERMOGENES P. POBRE, ASSOCIATE
COMMISSIONER ARMANDO PASCUAL, BOARD OF

6
LEGAL MEDICINEGELLIE VALLERIE T. LUMANTAS

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[1] dated May 16, 2000, of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283. The appellate
court affirmed the judgment2[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

Resolution3[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[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

4
7

LEGAL MEDICINEGELLIE VALLERIE T. LUMANTAS

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[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[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 CAG.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[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 CAG.R. SP No. 34506.
On August 31, 1994, the appellate court decided
CA-G.R. SP No. 34506 as follows:

5
6

7
8

LEGAL MEDICINEGELLIE VALLERIE T. LUMANTAS

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 RTCManila, 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[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 crossexamine the herein respondents. Trial was reset
to November 28, 1994.

Case No.
decision.

93-66530

deemed

submitted

for

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[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[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 reraffled to another branch.
On December 26, 1994, the petitioners herein
filed their Notice of Appeal11[11] in Civil Case No.
93-66530, thereby elevating the case to the
Court of Appeals, where it was docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 37283.
In our Resolution of June 7, 1995, G.R. No.
118437 was consolidated with G.R. No. 117817.

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

11

10

9
LEGAL MEDICINEGELLIE VALLERIE T. LUMANTAS

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[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. VicencioGamilla, 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:

No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.13[13]
In sustaining the trial courts decision, the
appellate court ratiocinated that the respondents
complied with all the statutory requirements for
admission into the licensure examination for
physicians in February 1993. They all passed the
said
examination.
Having
fulfilled
the
requirements of Republic Act No. 2382,14[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[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

13
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the
decision appealed from, We hereby AFFIRM the
same and DISMISS the instant appeal.

14

12

15
10

LEGAL MEDICINEGELLIE VALLERIE T. LUMANTAS

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 2016[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[17] Section 3
of Rule 6518[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[19] Moreover, there must be
statutory authority for the performance of the
act,20[20] and the performance of the duty has
been refused.21[21] Thus, it must be pertinently
asked now: Did petitioners have the duty to
administer the Hippocratic Oath and register
respondents as physicians under the Medical Act
of 1959?
As found by the Court of Appeals, on which we
agree on the basis of the records:
It bears emphasizing herein that petitionerappellees 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[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
profession23[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

19
20

16

21

17

22

18

23
11

LEGAL MEDICINEGELLIE VALLERIE T. LUMANTAS

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[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 shall sign and
issue certificates of registration to those who
have
satisfactorily
complied
with
the
requirements of the Board. In statutory
construction the term shall is a word of
command. It is given imperative meaning. Thus,
when an examinee satisfies the requirements for
the grant of his physicians license, the Board is
obliged to administer to him his oath and register
him as a physician, pursuant to Section 20 and
par. (1) of Section 2225[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 126[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 927[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[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[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 830[30] of Rep. Act No. 2382 prescribes,
among others, that a person who aspires to

24

27

25

28

26

29
12

LEGAL MEDICINEGELLIE VALLERIE T. LUMANTAS

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[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[32] There must be a
well-defined, clear and certain legal right to the
thing demanded.33[33] It is long established rule
that a license to practice medicine is a privilege
or franchise granted by the government.34[34]
It is true that this Court has upheld the
constitutional right35[35] of every citizen to select
a profession or course of study subject to a fair,
reasonable, and equitable admission and
academic requirements.36[36] But like all rights
and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter, their
exercise may be so regulated pursuant to the
police power of the State to safeguard health,
morals, peace, education, order, safety, and
general welfare of the people.37[37] Thus, persons
who desire to engage in the learned professions
requiring scientific or technical knowledge may

be required to take an examination as a


prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers.
This regulation takes particular pertinence in the
field of medicine, to protect the public from the
potentially deadly effects of incompetence and
ignorance among those who would practice
medicine. In a previous case, it may be recalled,
this Court has ordered the Board of Medical
Examiners to annul both its resolution and
certificate authorizing a Spanish subject, with the
degree of Licentiate in Medicine and Surgery from
the University of Barcelona, Spain, to practice
medicine in the Philippines, without first passing
the examination required by the Philippine
Medical Act.38[38] In another case worth noting,
we upheld the power of the State to upgrade the
selection of applicants into medical schools
through admission tests.39[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[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[41]

31

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

32

37

33

38

34

39

35

40

36

41

30

13
LEGAL MEDICINEGELLIE VALLERIE T. LUMANTAS

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. 9366530. 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[42] There is no
longer any justiciable controversy so that any
declaration thereon would be of no practical use
or value.43[43] It should be recalled that in its
decision of 19 December 1994 the trial court

granted the writ of mandamus prayed for by


private respondents, which decision was received
by petitioners on 20 December 1994. Three (3)
days after, or on 23 December 1994, petitioners
filed the instant petition. By then, the remedy
available to them was to appeal the decision to
the Court of Appeals, which they in fact did, by
filing a notice of appeal on 26 December 1994. 44
[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 2645[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[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[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. 9366530.
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. RaquenoRabaino, Saibzur N. Edding, Derileen D. DoradoEdding, Robert B. Sanchez, Maria Rosario LeonorLacandula, Geraldine Elizabeth M. Pagilagan-

44
45

42

46

43

47
14

LEGAL MEDICINEGELLIE VALLERIE T. LUMANTAS

Palma, Margarita Belinda L. Vicencio-Gamilla,


Herminigilda E. Conejos, Leuvina P. Chico-Paguio,
Elcin C. Arriola-Ocampo, and Jose Ramoncito P.
Navarro manifested to the Court of Appeals
during the pendency of CA-G.R. SP No. 37283,
that they were no longer interested in proceeding
with the case and moved for its dismissal insofar
as they were concerned. A similar manifestation
and motion were later filed by intervenors Mary
Jean I. Yeban-Merlan, Michael L. Serrano, Norma
G. Lafavilla, Arnulfo A. Salvador, Belinda C.
Rabarra, Yolanda P. Unica, Dayminda G.
Bontuyan, Clarissa B. Baclig, Ma. Luisa S.
Gutierrez, Rhoneil R. Deveraturda, Aleli A.
Gollayan, Evelyn C. Cundangan, Frederick D.
Francisco, Violeta V. Meneses, Melita J. Caedo,
Clarisa
SJ.
Nicolas,
Federico
L.
Castillo,
Karangalan D. Serrano, Danilo A. Villaver, Grace
E. Uy, Lydia C. Chan, and Melvin M. Usita.
Following these manifestations and motions, the
appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283 decreed
that its ruling would not apply to them. Thus,
inasmuch as the instant case is a petition for
review of the appellate courts ruling in CA-G.R. SP
No. 37283, a decision which is inapplicable to the
aforementioned respondents will similarly not
apply to them.
As to Achilles J. Peralta, Evelyn O. Ramos, Sally B.
Bunagan, Rogelio B. Ancheta, Oscar H. Padua, Jr.,
Evelyn D. Grajo, Valentino P. Arboleda, Carlos M.
Bernardo, Jr., Mario D. Cuaresma, Violeta C.
Felipe, Percival H. Pangilinan, Corazon M. Cruz
and Samuel B. Bangoy, herein decision shall not
apply pursuant to the Orders of the trial court in
Civil Case No. 93-66530, dropping their names
from the suit.
Consequently, this Decision is binding only on the
remaining respondents, namely: Arlene V. de
Guzman, Celerina S. Navarro, Rafael I. Tolentino,
Bernardita B. Sy, Gloria T. Jularbal, Hubert S.
Nazareno, Nancy J. Chavez, Ernesto L. Cue,
Herminio V. Fernandez, Jr., Maria Victoria M.
Lacsamana and Merly D. Sta. Ana, as well as the
petitioners.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED.
Accordingly, (1) the assailed decision dated May
16, 2000, of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP
No. 37283, which affirmed the judgment dated
December 19, 1994, of the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 52, in Civil Case No. 93-66530,
ordering petitioners to administer the physicians
oath to herein respondents as well as the
resolution dated August 25, 2000, of the
appellate court, denying the petitioners motion
for reconsideration, are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE; and (2) the writ of mandamus, issued in
Civil Case No. 93-66530, and affirmed by the

appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283 is


NULLIFIED AND SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
Quisumbing, J., no part.
Austria-Martinez, J., no part - on leave.
Rissa M. Mira - Case Digest
DECS vs. San Diego
G.R. No. 89572 December 21, 1989
Facts:
Respondent San Diego has flunked the NMAT
(National Medical Admission Test) three times.
When he applied to take again, petitioner
rejected his application based on the threeflunk-rule. He then filed a petition before the
RTC on the ground of due process and equal
protection and challenging the constitutionality of
the order. The petition was granted by the RTC
therefore this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the NMAT three-flunk-rule order
is valid and constitutional.
Ruling:
Yes. It is the right and responsibility of the State
to insure that the medical profession is not
infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may
unwarily entrust their lives and health. The
method employed by the challenged regulation is
not irrelevant to the purpose of the law nor is it
arbitrary or oppressive. The right to quality
education is not absolute. The Constitution
provides that every citizen has the right to
choose a profession or course of study, subject to
fair, reasonable and equitable admission and
academic requirements. It is not enough to
simply invoke the right to quality education as a
guarantee of the Constitution but one must show
that he is entitled to it because of his preparation
and promise. Petition was granted and the RTC
ruling was reversed.
G.R. No. 89572 December 21, 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

15
LEGAL MEDICINEGELLIE VALLERIE T. LUMANTAS

Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch


172, respondents.
Ramon M. Guevara for private respondent.

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.

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 thath) 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
constitutional grounds.

insists

he

can,

on

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

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.

16
LEGAL MEDICINEGELLIE VALLERIE T. LUMANTAS

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 threeflunk 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

17
LEGAL MEDICINEGELLIE VALLERIE T. LUMANTAS

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.

18
LEGAL MEDICINEGELLIE VALLERIE T. LUMANTAS

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez,


Jr., Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin,
Sarmiento, Cortes, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea and
Regalado, JJ., concur.

19
LEGAL MEDICINEGELLIE VALLERIE T. LUMANTAS

You might also like