G.R. No.

L-24119 August 8, 1925

FELIX MARQUEZ vs. THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS and THE
SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

Facts: Felix Marquez a graduate of Chicago Medical College with M.D. degree
seeks to obtain a writ of mandamus against the respondents (BME) requiring them
to admit Marquez to the physicians’ examinations conducted or to be conducted by
the respondents in the City of Manila. Apparently, they have denied Marquez
admission to the examinations on the grounds that the Chicago Medical College has
been classified as a Class C medical college by the National Medical State Board of
the US. For this reason the respondents, in accordance with the regulations of the
board now in effect, have denied the requisite standing to said institution and
excluded Marquez.

In the argument for the Marquez, it is admitted that under Act No. 3111, and the
regulations now in force, the petitioner is disqualified to take the examinations; but
it is pointed out that at the time he began and even when he conducted his course in
the Chicago Medical School, said institution was still recognized as a reputable
medical institution. According to Marquez, his case should be governed by the law
and regulations at the time of his graduation. To hold otherwise, it is insisted, is to
make the law retroactive in effect and to do irreparable damage to the petitioner,
who has pursued his work in the institution referred to in good faith, believing that
said school had the status necessary to qualify him from examination.

Issue: Whether the Marquez’s case should be governed by the law and regulations
in force at the time of his enrollment in and graduation from the Chicago Medical
School

Ruling: NO. The question whether a medical institution is "a reputable medical
school," in the sense intended by the law, is vested in the Board of Medical
Examiners, and although the action taken by them may conceivably, in isolated
cases, result in hardship, nevertheless the interests of the public require that the
board should be free to exercise its judgment and discretion without reference to the
effect of the determination of the question in particular instances.

No one who has commenced preparation in a particular institution has any inchoate
right on account of that fact. If the law were otherwise upon this point, it would be
impossible for the Board of Medical Examiners to give effect to the knowledge
which they from time to time acquire as to the standing of medical schools; and an
intending physician, upon matriculating in a particular college, takes upon himself
the risk of changes that may be made in the standing of the institution by the board.
G.R. No. L-32441 March 29, 1930 boards of state and federal governments in respect of matters as to which they are
DOMINADOR GOMEZ vs. HONORIO VENTURA, Secretary of the Interior vested with discretion. In other words, they cannot be compelled to act or render a
of the Government of the Philippine Islands, and the decision in any particular way, and this is so, even though the exercise of this
BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS discretion requires the construction and interpretation of statutes. Where public
officials exercise their discretion, it is said that their conclusions, although
Facts: Assistant Fiscal Alfonso Felix conducted investigation proceedings and the disputable, are impregnable to mandamus. (38 C. J., 659-660.)
Board of Medical Examiners decided to revoke Gomez’s license to practice
medicine and surgery for illegally prescribing unnecessary use of opium. Now,
Gomez seeks to annul and set aside the revocation of his license.

Issues: (1) W/N Assistant Fiscal Felix is authorized by law to file charges with the
Board of Medical Examiners;
(2) W/N the judgment appealed from is correctly rendered

Ruling: (1) YES. According to section 780 of Administrative Code, as amended by

Act No. 3111, the procedure to be observed in revoking a certificate of registration
is the following:
Proceedings for revocation of a certificate of registration shall be begun
by filing a written charge or charges against the accused. These charges
may be preferred by any person or persons, firm or corporation, or the
Board of Medical Examiners itself may direct its executive officer to
prepare said charges. Said charges shall be filed with the executive officer
of the Board of Medical Examiners and a copy thereof, together with
written notice of the time and place when they will be heared and
determined, shall be served upon the accused or his counsel, at least two
weeks before the date actually fixed for said hearing. (Sec. 12, Act No.
3111.)

The law does not require that the charges be preferred by a public officer or by any
specified person; it even permits the Board of Medical Examiners itself to require its
executive officer to prefer said charges. From the wording of the law we infer that
any person, including a public officer, may prefer the charges referred to in the
above-quoted provision. Wherefore, the fact that the charges were filed by Assistant
Fiscal Alfonso Felix of the City of Manila, does not deprive the Board of Medical
Examiners of jurisdiction to hear said charges and to take the proper action
according to law.

(2) YES. As the Attorney-General correctly observes, the powers vested in

the Board of Medical Examiners to suspend or revoke a physician's certificate of
registration and the authority granted the Secretary of the Interior of confirming or
reversing the decision of said board of examiners, partake of a quasi-judicial
character, that is, involve the use of discretion. For this reason, the exercise thereof
cannot be reviewed by mandamus, which is the nature of this cause on its merits.

As in the case of courts and judicial officers, it is a rule of general application

that mandamus will not lie to review or control the acts of executive officers and
G.R. No. 89572 December 21, 1989 That end, it is useful to recall, is the protection of the public from the potentially
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS (DECS) and deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance in those who would undertake to treat
DIRECTOR OF CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT vs. our bodies and minds for disease or trauma.
ROBERTO REY C. SAN DIEGO and JUDGE TERESITA DIZON-
CAPULONG, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of The right to quality education invoked by the private respondent is not absolute. The
Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 172 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
Facts: Roberto Rey San Diego a graduate of UE with a Bachelor of Science in requirements.
Zoology, claims that he took the NMAT three times and flunked as many times.
When he applied to take it again, the petitioner rejected his application on the basis
The private respondent must yield to the challenged rule and give way to those
of the rule, that A student shall be allowed only three (3) chances to take the NMAT.
better prepared. Where even those who have qualified may still not be
After three (3) successive failures, a student shall not be allowed to take the NMAT
accommodated in our already crowded medical schools, there is all the more reason
for the fourth time. He then went to the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro
to bar those who, like him, have been tested and found wanting.
Manila, to compel his admission to the test.
No depreciation is intended or made against the private respondent. It is stressed
In his original petition for mandamus, he first invoked his constitutional rights to
that a person who does not qualify in the NMAT is not an absolute incompetent
academic freedom and quality education. By agreement of the parties, San Diego
unfit for any work or occupation. The only inference is that he is a probably better,
was allowed to take the NMAT scheduled on April 16, 1989, subject to the outcome
not for the medical profession, but for another calling that has not excited his
of his petition. In an amended petition filed with leave of court, he squarely interest.
challenged the constitutionality of MECS Order No. 12, Series of 1972, containing
the above-cited rule.

Issue: Whether a person who has thrice failed the National Medical Admission Test
(NMAT) is entitled to take it again

Ruling: NO. This question is perhaps most usefully approached by recalling that the
regulation of the practice of medicine in all its branches has long been recognized as
a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public. That the
power to regulate and control the practice of medicine includes the power to
regulate admission to the ranks of those authorized to practice medicine, is also well
recognized. Thus, legislation and administrative regulations requiring those who
wish to practice medicine first to take and pass medical board examinations have
long ago been recognized as valid exercises of governmental power.

Similarly, the establishment of minimum medical educational requirements-i.e., the

completion of prescribed courses in a recognized medical school-for admission to
the medical profession, has also been sustained as a legitimate exercise of the
regulatory authority of the state.

What we have before us in the instant case is closely related: the regulation of
access to medical schools. MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985, as noted earlier, articulates
the rationale of regulation of this type: the improvement of the professional and
technical quality of the graduates of medical schools, by upgrading the quality of
those admitted to the student body of the medical schools.
G.R. No. 144681 June 21, 2004
PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION (PRC), et al. vs. DE
GUZMAN, et al.
Facts: The respondents are all graduates of the Fatima College of Medicine,
Valenzuela City. 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. 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. The PRC
asked the NBI to investigate whether any anomaly or irregularity marred the
February 1993 Physician Licensure Examination.
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."
Respondents then filed a special civil action for mandamus with prayer for
preliminary mandatory injunction. Meanwhile, the Board issued Resolution No. 26,
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.
RTC granted the preliminary mandatory injunction, ordered the petitioners to
administer physician’s oath to Arlene V. De Guzman et al., and enter their names in
the rolls of the PRC.
Issue: Whether or the CA is correct in sustaining the validity of the writ of
mandamus – allowing the respondent to take the physician’s oath and entry of their
names in the rolls of the PRC
Ruling: NO. 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. There must be a well-defined, clear and certain legal right to the thing
demanded. It is long established rule that a license to practice medicine is a
privilege or franchise granted by the government.
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.36 But like all rights and freedoms guaranteed by the
Charter, their exercise may be so regulated pursuant to the police power of the State
to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and general welfare of
the people.37 Thus, persons who desire to engage in the learned professions
requiring scientific or technical knowledge may be required to take an examination
as a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers. This regulation takes particular
pertinence in the field of medicine, to protect the public from the potentially deadly
effects of incompetence and ignorance among those who would practice medicine.
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.
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
physician’s 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.
G.R. No. 166097 July 14, 2008
BOARD OF MEDICINE, DR. RAUL FLORES (now DR. JOSE S.
RAMIREZ), in his capacity as Chairman of the Board, PROFESSIONAL
REGULATION COMMISSION, through its Chairman, HERMOGENES
POBRE (now DR. ALCESTIS M. GUIANG) vs. YASUYUKI OTA
the medical profession, has also been sustained as a legitimate exercise of the
regulatory authority of the state."
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.

Facts: Yasuyuki Ota, a Japanese national, married to a Filipina, who has
continuously resided in the Philippines for more than 10 years, and a graduate of
Bicol Christian College of Medicine with a degree of Doctor of Medicine, after
successfully completing a 1-year post grad internship training, filed an application
to take the medical board examinations in order to obtain a medical license. He was
then required by PRC to submit an affidavit of undertaking stating among others
that should he successfully pass the same, he would not practice medicine until he
submits proof that reciprocity exists between Japan and the Philippines in admitting
foreigners into the practice of medicine.
Ota submitted a duly notarized English translation of the Medical Practitioners Law
of Japan duly authenticated by the Consul General of Phil Embassy of Japan,
allowing him to take medical board examinations, which he subsequently passed.
R.A. No. 2382, which provides who may be candidates for the medical board
examinations, merely requires a foreign citizen to submit competent and conclusive
documentary evidence, confirmed by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA),
showing that his country’s existing laws permit citizens of the Philippines to
practice medicine under the same rules and regulations governing citizens thereof.
As required by the said laws, respondent submitted a copy of the Medical
Practitioners Law of Japan, duly authenticated by the Consul General of the
Embassy of the Philippines in Japan. Respondent has satisfactorily complied with
the said requirement and the CA has not committed any reversible error in rendering
its Decision dated November 16, 2004 and Resolution dated October 19, 2003.

In spite of all these, the Board of the PRC denied Ota’s request for a license to
practice medicine in the Philippines on the ground that the Board "believes that no
genuine reciprocity can be found in the law of Japan as there is no Filipino or
foreigner who can possibly practice there."

Hence, this petition. Both the RTC and CA ruled in favor of Ota.

Issue: Whether or not Ota is allowed to practice medicine in the Philippines

Ruling: YES. There is no question that a license to practice medicine is a privilege

or franchise granted by the government.26 It is a right that is earned through years of
education and training, and which requires that one must first secure a license from
the state through professional board examinations.27

Indeed, 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.
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
G.R. No. L-15079 January 31, 1962
People of the Philippines vs. Guillermo I. Ventura Similarly, there is no such thing as implied license to practice drugless healing by
the mere fact that the Chairman of the Board of Medical Examiners had permitted
Facts: In 1949, Guillermo Ventura was convicted by the Court of First Instance of appellant to serve free in the Central Luzon Sanitarium in Tala, Caloocan, Rizal, or
illegal practice of medicine; that countless people persisted in engaging his services. For one thing, these people
might have contracted his services on the mistaken notion that he was duly licensed
In 1955, he again set up a clinic and by reason of certain complaints received by the to practice his profession; for another, a repetition of illegal acts can never make
National Bureau of Investigation from the President of the Philippine Federation of them legal.
Private Medical Practitioners and from the Chairman of the Board of Medical
Examiners, the NBI sent its morgue attendant Jose Natayan to the clinic of Ventura,
who was at that time suffering from pains in his back and asked Ventura to see his
sickness.

Ventura attended to Natayan, told him that he was sick of ‘lumbago’, asked him to
pay P5.00 in exchange for an enema of hot water, exposure of his back to a big bulb
for fifteen minutes and a red colored bulb for another ten minutes. Afterwards,
Ventura instructed Natayan to come back for six consecutive days.

The following day, Natayan returned to the clinic of Ventura with the NBI raiding
party and executed raid moments before Natayan was given treatment by Ventura.

The lower court then concluded that Guillermo Ventura was not a duly registered
masseur or a physician qualified to practice medicine.

Issue: Whether or not Ventura is guilty of illegal practice of medicine

Ruling: YES. Under the police power, the State may prescribe such regulations as
in its judgment will secure or tend to secure the general welfare of the people, to
protect them against the consequences of ignorance and incapacity as well as of
deception and fraud. As one means to this end, it has been the practice of different
States, from time immemorial to exact in any pursuit, profession or trade, a certain
degree of skill and learning upon which the community may confidently rely, their
possession being generally ascertained in an examination of parties by competent
persons, or inferred from a certificate to them in the form of a diploma or license
from an institution established for instruction on the subjects, scientific or
otherwise, with which such pursuits have to deal.

Upon investigation, Ventura was found to be without certificate of registration to

practice such profession either from the Board of Medical Examiners or from the
Committee of Examiners of Masseurs. Furthermore, Ventura himseld, testifying on
his behalf admitted that for the past 35 years, he had been practicing as a
naturopathic physician, "treating human ailments without the use of drugs and
medicines" and employing in his practice "electricity, water and hand" without a
license to practice medicine; that during this time he had treated 500,000 patients,
more or less about 90% of whom were healed, and that he had studied drugless
healing in the American University, Chicago, Illinois for about four years.