Tablarin v Gutierrez
to quality education.
Facts: The petitioners sought to enjoin the Secretary of Education,
Culture and Sports, the Board of Medical Education and the Center
for Educational Measurement from enforcing a requirement the
taking and passing of the NMAT as a condition for securing
certificates of eligibility for admission, from proceeding with accepting
applications for taking the NMAT and from administering the NMAT
as scheduled on 26 April 1987 and in the future. The trial court
denied said petition and the NMAT was conducted and administered
as scheduled.
The NMAT, an aptitude test, is considered as an instrument toward
upgrading the selection of applicants for admission into the medical
schools and its calculated to improve the quality of medical
education in the country. The cutoff score for the successful
applicants, based on the scores on the NMAT, shall be determined
every year by the Board of Medical Education after consultation with
the Association of Philippine Medical Colleges. The NMAT rating of
each applicant, together with the other admission requirements as
presently called for under existing rules, shall serve as a basis for the
issuance of the prescribed certificate of eligibility for admission into
the medical colleges.
Issue: Whether or not Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act No. 2382,
as amended, and MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985 are constitutional.
Held: Yes. We conclude that prescribing the NMAT and requiring
certain minimum scores therein as a condition for admission to
medical schools in the Philippines, do not constitute an
unconstitutional imposition.
The police power, it is commonplace learning, is the pervasive and
non-waivable power and authority of the sovereign to secure and
promote all the important interests and needs — in a word, the public
order — of the general community. An important component of that
public order is the health and physical safety and well being of the
population, the securing of which no one can deny is a legitimate
objective of governmental effort and regulation. Perhaps the only
issue that needs some consideration is whether there is some
reasonable relation between the prescribing of passing the NMAT as
a condition for admission to medical school on the one hand, and the
securing of the health and safety of the general community, on the
other hand. This question is perhaps most usefully approached by
recalling that the regulation of the practice of medicine in all its
branches has long been recognized as a reasonable method of
protecting the health and safety of the public.
DECS and Dir. of Educational Measurement vs. Roberto Rey San
Diego and Judge Dizon-Capulong
G.R. No. 89572, December 21, 1989
FACTS: Roberto Rey San Diego, a graduate of the University of the
East with a degree of B.S. Zoology, had taken and flunked 4 National
Medical Admission Tests and was applying to take another test.
NMAT Rule provides that a student shall be allowed only three (3)
chances to take the test. After three successive failures, a student
shall not be allowed to take the NMAT for the fourth time. The
Regional Trial Court held that the petitioner had been deprived of his
right to pursue a medical education through an arbitrary exercise of
the police power.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent has been deprived of his right
RULING: NMAT is a measure intended to limit the admission to
medical schools to those who have initially proved their competence
and preparation for a medical education. The regulation of practice of
medicine is a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety
of the public. This regulation includes the power to regulate
admission to the ranks of those authorized to practice medicine.
NMAT is a means of achieving the country’s objective of “upgrading
the selection of applicants into medical schools” and of “improving
the quality of medical education in the country” It is 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 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 requirement.
The equal protection requires equality among equals. There would
be unequal protection if some applicants who have passed the tests
are admitted and others who have also qualified are denied entrance.
The petition has been granted and the decision of the respondent
court has been reversed.
Acebedo Optical Co. vs. Court of Appeals
Nature: Petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
seeking to nullify the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of the original
petition for certiorari
Petitioner: Acebedo Optical Company, Inc.
Respondent:Court of Appeals
Facts: Petitioner applied with the Office of the City Mayor of Iligan for
a business permit. After consideration of petitioner's application and
the opposition interposed thereto by local optometrists, respondent
City Mayor issued Business Permit No. 5342 subject to the following
conditions: (1) Since it is a corporation, Acebedo cannot put up an
optical clinic but only a commercial store; (2) It  cannot examine
and/or prescribe reading and similar optical glasses for patients,
because these are functions of optical clinics; (3) It cannot sell
reading and similar eyeglasses without a prescription having first
been made by an independent optometrist or independent optical
clinic. Acebedo can only sell directly to the public, without need of a
prescription, Ray-Ban and similar eyeglasses; (4) It cannot advertise
optical lenses and eyeglasses, but can advertise Ray-Ban and
similar glasses and frames; (5) It is allowed to grind lenses but only
upon the prescription of an independent optometrist.
On December 5, 1988, private respondent Samahan ng
Optometrist Sa Pilipinas (SOPI lodged a complaint against the
petitioner alleging that Acebedo had violated the conditions set forth
in its business permit and requesting the cancellation and/or
revocation of such permit. On July 19, 1989, the City Mayor sent
petitioner a Notice of Resolution and Cancellation of Business Permit
effective as of said date and giving petitioner three (3) months to
wind up its affairs.
Issue: Whether the City Mayor has the authority to impose special
conditions, as a valid exercise of police power, in the grant of
business permits

Ratio: Police power as an inherent attribute of sovereignty is the
power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace,
education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people. It
is essentially regulatory in nature and the power to issue licenses or
grant business permits, if exercised for a regulatory and not revenue-
raising purpose, is within the ambit of this power. The authority of city
mayors to issue or grant licenses and business permits is beyond
cavil. However, the power to grant or issue licenses or business
permits must always be exercised in accordance with law, with
utmost observance of the rights of all concerned to due process and
equal protection of the law.
In the case under consideration, the business permit granted by
respondent City Mayor to petitioner was burdened with several
conditions. Petitioner agrees with the holding by the Court of Appeals
that respondent City Mayor acted beyond his authority in imposing
such special conditions in its permit as the same have no basis in the
law or ordinance. Public respondents and private respondent SOPI
are one in saying that the imposition of said special conditions is well
within the authority of the City Mayor as a valid exercise of police
power.
The issuance of business licenses and permits by a municipality or
city is essentially regulatory in nature. The authority, which devolved
upon local government units to issue or grant such licenses or
permits, is essentially in the exercise of the police power of the State
within the contemplation of the general welfare clause of the Local
Government Code.
What is sought by petitioner from respondent City Mayor is a permit
to engage in the business of running an optical shop. It does not
purport to seek a license to engage in the practice of optometry. The
objective of the imposition of subject conditions on petitioner's
business permit could be attained by requiring the optometrists in
petitioner's employ to produce a valid certificate of registration as
optometrist, from the Board of Examiners in Optometry. A business
permit is issued primarily to regulate the conduct of business and the
City Mayor cannot, through the issuance of such permit, regulate the
practice of a profession. Such a function is within the exclusive
domain of the administrative agency specifically empowered by law
to supervise the profession, in this case the Professional Regulations
Commission and the Board of Examiners in Optometry.
Ruling: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED; the Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 22995 REVERSED: and the
respondent City Mayor is hereby ordered to reissue petitioner's
business permit in accordance with law and with this disposition. No
pronouncement as to costs.
Doctrine: The scope of police power has been held to be so
comprehensive as to encompass almost all matters affecting the
health, safety, peace, order, morals, comfort and convenience of the
community.  Police power is essentially regulatory in nature and the
power to issue licenses or grant business permits, if exercised for a
regulatory and not revenue-raising purpose, is within the ambit of this
power.
 Requisites
1 -    LAWFUL SUBJECT: The interests of the public generally, as
distinguished from those of a particular class, require the exercise of
the police power
2 -    LAWFUL MEANS: The means employed are reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly
oppressive upon individuals
Professional Regulation Commission v. De Guzman G.R. No.
144681, [June 21, 2004], 476 PHIL 596-623
FACTS: After the Professional Regulations Commission (PRC)
released the names of successful examinees in the Medical
Licensure Examination, the Board of Medicine observed that the
grades of the 79 Fatima College of Medicine successful examinees
were unusually and exceptionally high in the two (2) most difficult
subjects of the exam, i.e., Biochemistry and Obstetrics and
Gynecology.
The Board then issued Resolution No. 19 withholding the registration
as physicians of all the examinees from Fatima College of Medicine.
As noted by PRC’s statistician consultant, Fr. Nebres of ADMU,
compared with other examinees from other schools, the results of
those from Fatima were not only incredibly high but unusually
clustered close to each other. The NBI Investigation concluded that
the Fatima examinees gained early access to the test questions.
On July 5, 1993, the respondents-examinees filed a petition for
mandamus before the RTC of Manila to compel the PRC to give
them their licenses to practice medicine. Meanwhile on July 21,
1993, the Board of Medicine issued Resolution No. 21 charging the
respondents of immorality, dishonest conduct, fraud and deceit and
recommended that the test results of the Fatima Examinees be
nullified.
On December 19, 1994, the RTC of Manila promulgated its decision
ordering the PRC to allow the respondents to take the physician’s
oath and to register them as physicians. The same was appealed by
the PRC to the Court of Appeals which sustained the RTC decision.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUES:
1. WON it is a ministerial duty for the Board of Medicine to issue
certificates of registration as physicians under RA 2382
2. WON the respondent-examinees have the right to be registered as
physicians
RULING:
1. 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 physician’s license, the Board is
obliged to administer to him his oath and register him as a physician,
pursuant to Section 20 and par. (1) of Section 22 of the Medical Act
of 1959.
However, the surrounding circumstances in this case call for serious
inquiry concerning the satisfactory compliance with the Board
requirements by the respondents.
Section 8 of Rep. Act No. 2382 prescribes, among others, that a
person who aspires to practice medicine in the Philippines, must
have “satisfactorily passed the corresponding Board Examination.”
Section 22, in turn, provides that the oath may only be administered
“to physicians who qualified in the examinations.” The operative word
here is “satisfactorily,” defined as “sufficient to meet a condition or
obligation” or “capable of dispelling doubt or ignorance.” 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.
Hence, until the moral and mental fitness of the respondents could
be ascertained, 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.
2. 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. 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. 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 the present case, RA 2382, as amended, prescribed 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.
U.S. vs GOMEZ, G.R. NO. L-9651, August 4, 1915 (31 Phil 218)
Facts:
In this case, defendant was found guilty by the trial court with the
crime of practicing medicine without a license, in violation of Section
8, Act 30 of the Philippine Commission which provides: “The Board of
Medical Examiners may refuse to issue any of the following
certificates provided for therein to an individual convicted by a court
of competent jurisdiction of any offense involving immoral or
dishonorable conduct. In case of such refusal, the reason therefore
shall be stated to the applicant in writing. The Board may also revoke
any such certificate for like cause, or for unprofessional conduct,
after due notice to the person holding the certificate, and a hearing,
subject to an appeal to the Board of Health for the Philippine Islands,
the decision of which shall be final.” Defendant contends that the
court erred in declaring the aforementioned provision are no in
conflict with the provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902 and in which
he relies on paragraph 1, section 5 thereof which states: “That no law
shall be enacted in said Islands which shall deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any
person therein the equal protection of the laws.”
Held:
Defendant’s contention is not meritorious because the Board of
Medical Examiners where given such a responsibility through the
exercise of the State’s police power. The state has general power to
enact such laws, in relation to persons, and property within its
borders, as may promote public health, public morals, public safety,
and the general prosperity and welfare of its inhabitants. This power
of the state is generally denominated in its police power. It has been
held that the state cannot be deprived of its right to exercise this
power. The police power and the right to exercise it constitute the
very foundation, or at least one of the cornerstones of the state. For
the state to deprive itself or permit it to be deprived of the right to
enact laws to promote general prosperity and welfare of its
inhabitants, and promote public health, public morals, and public
safety, would be to destroy the very purpose and objects of the state.
No legislature can bargain away the public health, public safety, or
the public morals. The people themselves cannot do it, much less
their servants. Governments are organized with a view to
preservation of these things. They cannot deprive themselves of the
power to provide for them. (Stone vs. Mississippi) In order to
enforce the police power of the state, it may, under certain conditions
become necessary to deprive its citizens of property and of a right
providing for the continuance of property, when the property or the
exercise of the right may tend to destroy the public health, the public
morals, the public safety, and the general welfare and prosperity of
its inhabitants. (Slaughter House Cases) Upon police power of the
state depends the security of social order, the life and health of the
citizens, the comfort of an existence in a thickly populated
community, the enjoyment of private and social life, and the
beneficial use of property. It extends to the protection of the lives,
limbs, health, comfort and quiet of all persons and the protection of
all property within the state. Persons and property are subjected to all
kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general
comfort, health, and prosperity of the state.
ST. LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEE’S FOUNDATION AFW
v. NLRC
Facts:
Congress passed and enacted Republic Act No. 7431 known as the
“Radiologic Technology Act of 1992.” Said law requires that no
person shall practice or offer to practice as a radiology and/or x-ray
technologist in the Philippines without having obtained the proper
certificate of registration from the Board of Radiologic Technology.
Petitioner Maribel Santos was hired as X-Ray Technician in the
Radiology department of private respondent St. Luke’s Medical
Center, Inc. (SLMC).
Pursuant to RA 7431 the assistant Executive Director-Ancillary
Services and HR Director of private respondent SLMC issued a final
notice to all practitioners of Radiologic Technology to comply with the
requirement otherwise, the unlicensed employee will be transferred
to an area which does not require a license to practice if a slot is
available.
requirements for x-ray technicians and/or any other professions
connected with the health and safety of its citizens. Respondent
being engaged in the hospital and health care business, is a proper
subject of the cited law; thus, having in mind the legal requirements
of these laws, the latter cannot close its eyes and complainant
private interest override public interest. The law is clear that the
Certificate of Registration cannot be substituted by any other
requirement to allow a person to practice as a Radiologic
Technologist and/or X-ray Technologist (Technician

The Director of the Institute of Radiology issued another

memorandum to petitioner Maribel S. Santos advising her that only a
license can assure her of her continued employment at the Institute
of Radiology of the private respondent SLMC and that the latter is
giving her the last chance to take and pass the forthcoming board
examination scheduled in June 1998; otherwise, private respondent
SLMC shall be constrained to take action which may include her
separation from employment.  On November 23, 1998, the Director
of the Institute of Radiology issued a notice to petitioner Maribel S.
Santos informing the latter that the management of private
respondent SLMC has approved her retirement in lieu of separation
pay. SLMC issued a “Notice of Separation from the Company” to
petitioner Maribel S. Santos effective December 30, 1998 in view of
the latter’s refusal to accept private respondent SLMC’s offer for
early retirement.

Petitioner Maribel Santos files a complaint against private respondent

illegal dismissal and non-payment of salaries, allowances and other
monetary benefits. She
further contends that her failure to pass the board licensure exam for
exam for X-ray
technicians did not constitute just cause for termination as it violated
her
constitutional right to security of tenure. The appellate court finds this
contention
untenable, hence this petition for certiorari.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner is legally dismissed pursuant to R.A.
7431
exercising police power of the State?

Held:
Yes, the petitioner dismissal is valid due to her inability to secure a
certificate
of registration from Board of Radiologic Technology.

While the right of workers to security of tenure is guaranteed by the

Constitution, its exercise may be reasonably regulated pursuant to
the police power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace,
education, order, safety, and the general welfare of the
people. Consequently, persons who desire to engage in the learned
professions requiring scientific or technical knowledge may be
required to take an examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their
chosen careers. The state is justified in prescribing the specific