VESTED RIGHTS!!

G.R. No. L-7231. March 28, 1956.]

BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING CO., Petitioner, vs. MARIANO PINEDA, in his capacity as Securities and Exchange
Commissioner, Respondent. CONSOLIDATED MINES, INC

defined by this Court in Balboa vs. Farrales, 51 Phil., 498, 502, as follows

“Vested right is ‘some right or interest in the property which has become fixed and established, and is no longer open to
doubt or controversy,”

“A ‘vested’ right is defined to be an immediate fixed right of present or future enjoyment, and rights are ‘vested’ in
contradistinction to being expectant or contingent” (Pearsall vs. Great Northern R. Co., 161 U. S. 646, 40 L. Ed. 838).

In Corpus Juris Secundum we find: Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS) is an encyclopedia of United States law

“Rights are vested when the right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become the property of some particular
person or persons as a present interest. The right must be absolute, complete, and unconditional, independent of a
contingency, and a mere expectancy of future benefit, or a contingent interest in property founded on anticipated
continuance of existing laws, does not constitute a vested right. So, inchoate rights which have not been acted on are
not vested.” (16 C.J. S. 214-215.)

NAT. CARLOADING CORP V. PHOENIX EXP., INC

SC texas National Carloading Corporation v. Phoenix-E1 Paso Express, Inc., cited in 16A Am, Jur. 2d, p. 651

4. — Vested Rights — Rates — Repeal of Statute.

A vested right is something that has become a legal, or equitable, tile to the present or future enjoyment of property,
or of a demand, or the legal exemption from a demand, of another, and where such title is dependent upon a
statutory provision and is not perfected before the repeal of such statute, without a saving clause, such right ceases
as though it had never existed.

CITED IN
UNITED PARACALE MINING COMPANY, INC vs. HON. JOSELITO DELA ROSA G.R. No. 63786-87. April 7, 1993
ABAKADA v Ermita G.R. No. 168207

The input tax is not a property or a property right within the constitutional purview of the due process clause. A VAT-
registered persons entitlement to the creditable input tax is a mere statutory privilege.

2. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; JUDICIAL RELIEF; NOT A VESTED RIGHT; A MERE STATUTORY PRIVILEGE, NOT
A PROPERTY RIGHT. — There can be no vested right in a judicial relief for this is a mere statutory privilege and not a
property right. The distinction between statutory privileges and vested rights must be borne in mind for persons have no
vested rights in statutory privileges. The state may change or take away rights which were created by the law of the
state, although it may not take away property which was vested by virtue of such rights.(16A Am. Jur. 2d, pp. 652-653)
Besides, the right to judicial relief is not a right which may constitute vested right because to be vested, a right must
have become a title, legal or equitable, to the present or future enjoyment of property, or to the present or future
enforcement of a demand or legal exemption from a demand made by another. (National Carloading Corporation v.
Phoenix-E1 Paso Express, Inc., cited in 16A Am, Jur. 2d, p. 651) Definitely, the judicial relief herein referred to by the
petitioner does not fall under any of these.

BOARD OF MEDICINE V YASUYUKI OTA

There is no question that a license to practice medicine is a privilege or franchise granted by the government. Professional
Regulation Commission v. De Guzman G.R. No. 144681, June 21, 2004, 432 SCRA 505 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 Reyes v. Sisters of Mercy Hospital 396 Phil. 87, 107 (2000)

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. Tablarin v. Gutierrez G.R. No. L-78164, July 31, 1987, 152 SCRA 730, 742

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 Professional Regulation Commission v. De Guzman

REYES V SISTERS OF MERCY

The practice of medicine is a profession engaged in only by qualified individuals. It is a right earned through
years of education, training, and by first obtaining a license from the state through professional board
examinations. Such license may, at any time and for cause, be revoked by the government. In addition to state
regulation, the conduct of doctors is also strictly governed by the Hippocratic Oath, an ancient code of
discipline and ethical rules which doctors have imposed upon themselves in recognition and acceptance of
their great responsibility to society. Given these safeguards, there is no need to expressly require of doctors
the observance of extraordinary diligence. As it is now, the practice of medicine is already conditioned upon
the highest degree of diligence. And, as we have already noted, the standard contemplated for doctors is
simply the reasonable average merit among ordinarily good physicians. That is reasonable diligence for
doctors or, as the Court of Appeals called it, the reasonable skill and competence . . . that a physician in the
same or similar locality . . . should apply.

PRC V DE GUZMAN

PRC V REYES
 It is long established rule that a license to practice medicine is a privilege or franchise
granted by the government.

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.

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.

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 of every citizen to select a
[35]

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
[36]

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, [37]

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. In another [38]

case worth noting, we upheld the power of the State to upgrade the selection of applicants
into medical schools through admission tests. [3

TABLARIN V GUTIERREZ

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.

NEW LAW RA 9484

ART I
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.

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

(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;

ART III

Sec. 14. Qualification for Admission to the Licensure Examination. -

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

Sec. 15. Scope of Examination.

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

Sec. 21. Refusal to Issue Certificates far 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.

Art IV
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. 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).

ART VI
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.

IRR

Sec 39 Repealing Clause’

Any provision/s of the rules, regulation, codes, orders, resolutions, measures, and other policies or part(s) thereof issued
pursuant to RA Nos. 4419 and 768, R.A. No. 8981, and other laws which are inconsistent with this “RR” (the Rules and
Regulations of the Philippine Dental Act of 2007 or “RR of R.A. No. 9484, or “RRPDA of 2007”, are hereby superseded,
repealed, or amended accordingly

PRC LAW RA 8981 ACT MODERNIZING THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION

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 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:

EQUITY

Hodges v Yulo,
Equity aids only the vigilant. We fully recognize this principle as being sound and just, but it must be remembered
that it is qualified by another principle of equity, to the effect that the party seeking to take advantage of the maxim
must be free from fault, and he must have done nothing to lull his adversary into repose, thereby obstructing and
preventing vigilance on the part of the latter. (Kentland Coal & Coke Co. vs. Elswick)