The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

MEDICAL
JURISPRUDENCE
BY: ATTY. JUDY ANNE YUKI YULO, RN, MD
 The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

LEGAL MEDICINE
The branch of medicine that deals with the
application of medical knowledge to legal
problems and legal proceedings.

Legal medicine is also called FORENSIC

MEDICINE.
FORENSIC MEDICINE
The branch of Legal medicine dealing with
the application of medical knowledge to
establish facts in civil or criminal legal cases,
such as an investigation into the cause and
time of a suspicious death. Also known as
forensic pathology. 2
The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE
The branch of law that deals with the
application of law to the practice of
medicine.

It also deals with the organization

and regulation of the medical
profession; the contractual obligation
of a physician or a health practitioner
to the patient; the professional
relationship to his or her colleagues;
and the duties imposed in the
practitioner by the state. 3
 The image part with relationship ID rId3 was not found in the file.

JURISPRUDENCE
Latin term juris prudentia, which
means "the study, knowledge, or
science of law.”

Focuses on finding the answer to

such abstract questions as “What
is the meaning of the law? or in
the Philippines, how did the
Supreme Court interpreted or
applied the law.

4
The image part with relationship ID rId3 was not found in the file.

H and W were married. Five years

after their marriage, they still have not
been blessed with a child. They
consulted Dr. X who revealed to them
that H has Azospermia. W had an affair
with L. Later, W gave birth to B. DNA
test revealed that B’s DNA matched L’s
DNA. H filed a criminal case against W
and L for adultery. Dr. X was
presented as a witness to reveal the
condition of H. W was convicted as an
adulteress. Who is the father of B?

5
 The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

A.M. No. 19-03-24-SC (JUNE 25, 2019)

RULE 138 : ATTORNEYS AND ADMISSION TO THE BAR

SEC. 5. Additional requirements for other applicants. - All

applicants for admission other than those referred to in the two
preceding sections, shall before being admitted to the
examination, satisfactorily show that they have regularly studied
law for four years, and successfully completed all prescribed
courses, in law school or university, officially approved and
recognized by the Secretary of Education. The affidavit of the
candidate, accompanied by a certificate from the university or
school of law , shall be filed as evidence of such facts, and
further evidence may be required by the court.

No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he

has satisfactorily completed the following courses in a law school
or university duly recognized by the government: civil law,
commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private
international law, political law, labor and social legislation,
medical jurisprudence, taxation, legal ethics and clinical
Iegal education program.
The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

ARTICLE 12
SECTION 14
The sustained development of reservoir of
national talents consisting of Filipino
scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals,
managers, high-level technical manpower
and skilled workers and craftsmen in all
fields shall be promoted by the State. The
State shall encourage appropriate technology
and regulate its transfer for the national
benefit.
The practice of all professions in the
Philippines shall be limited to Filipino
citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.
7
 The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

THE MEDICAL ACT OF 1959, AS AMENDED

ARTICLE I
Objectives and Implementation

SEC 1: OBJECTIVES: TO PROVIDE AND GOVERN

1. the standardization and regulation of the
medical education;
2. the examination for registration of physicians;
and
3. the supervision, control, and regulation of
the practice of medicine in the Philippines.
SEC 2: ENFORCING AGENCIES
• Board of Medical Education under the Commissioner
of Higher Education
• Board of Medical Examiners under the Commissioner
of Civil Service Commission
The image part with relationship ID rId3 was not found in the file.

SEC 5 - FUNCTIONS OF THE BOARD OF MEDICAL

EDUCATION:
1. To determine and prescribe requirements for
admission into a recognized college of medicine;
2. To determine and prescribe requirements for
minimum physical facilities of colleges of
medicine
3. To determine and prescribe the minimum
number and minimum qualifications of teaching
personnel
4. To determine and prescribe the minimum
required curriculum leading to the degree of
Doctor of Medicine;
5. To authorize the implementation of experimental
medical curriculum in a medical school that has
exceptional faculty and instrumental facilities.
 The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

6. To accept applications for certification for

admission to a medical school and keep a
register of those issued said certificate;
7. To select, determine and approve hospitals or
some departments of the hospitals for
training
8. To promulgate and prescribe and enforce the
necessary rules and regulations for the proper
implementation of the foregoing functions.

Sec. 6. Minimum required course.

Students seeking admission to medical course

must have a bachelor's degree in science or arts.
 BOME VS ALFONSO G.R. No. 88259 August 10, 1989

FACTS: The Board of Medical Education, pray for a writ

of certiorari to nullify and set aside the order issued by
respondent RTC Judge Alfonso, restraining the
enforcement of closure of the respondent Philippine
Muslim-Christian College of Medicine Foundation, Inc, a
private educational institution, who will "emancipate
Muslim citizens from age-old attitudes on health."
In 1985, the Department of Education, Culture
and Sports (DECS) and the Board of Medical Education
(BME) authorized the Commission on Medical
Education to conduct a study of all medical schools in
the Philippines. The, report of the Commission showed
that the College fell very much short of the minimum
standards set for medical schools. Accordingly, the
Board of Medical Education recommended to the DECS
the closure of the College.
ISSUE: WON the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports has
acted within the scope of powers granted him by law and the
Constitution in the closure of the said medical school.

HELD: YES. It is well-settled doctrine that courts of justice should

not generally interfere with purely administrative and
discretionary functions involving the exercise of judgment and
findings of facts, because by reason of their special knowledge
and expertise over matters falling under their jurisdiction, the
latter are in a better position to pass judgment on such matters
and their findings of facts in that regard are generally accorded
respect, by the courts. Here, the Secretary exercises the power to
enjoin compliance with the requirements laid down for medical
schools and to mete out sanctions where he finds that violations
thereof have been committed. The, members of the evaluating
team came from the different sectors in the fields of education
and medicine, and their judgment in this particular area is
certainly better than that of the respondent Judge. Respondent
Judge gravely abused his discretion in substituting his judgment
for theirs.
 The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

NATIONAL MEDICAL ADMISSION TEST

- is a prerequisite for medical colleges or

school
- an aptitude test which is considered as an
instrument toward upgrading the selection
of applicants for admission into the medical
schools and it is calculated to improve the
quality of medical education in the country.
- starting school year 1986-1987 no applicant
shall be issued the requisite Certificate of
Eligibility for Admission or admitted for
enrolment without the required NMAT.
The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

TABLARIN vs GUTIERREZ G.R. No. 78164 7/31/87

FACTS: The petitioners sought admission into
colleges or schools of medicine for the school year
1987-1988. However, the petitioners either did not
take or did not successfully take the National Medical
Admission Test (NMAT) required by the Board of
Medical Education. Petitioners filed a case with the
Regional Trial Court to enjoin the Secretary of
Education, Culture and Sports, the Board of Medical
Education and the Center for Educational
Measurement from enforcing RA 2382, as amended,
and MECS Order No. 52 and from requiring the
taking and passing of the NMAT as a condition for
securing certificates of eligibility for admission, and
from administering the NMAT in the future. The trial
court denied said petition.
 The image part with relationship ID rId3 was not found in the file.

ISSUE: : WON RA 2382, as amended, particularly the requirement of

the NMAT offend against the constitutional principle which forbids the
undue delegation of legislative power, by failing to establish the
necessary standard to be followed by the delegate, the Board of
Medical Education.

HELD: NO. The general principle of non-delegation of legislative

power, must be applied with circumspection in respect of statutes
which like the Medical Act of 1959, deal with subjects as obviously
complex and technical as medical education and the practice of
medicine in our present day world. The standards set for subordinate
legislation in the exercise of rule making authority by an administrative
agency like the Board of Medical Education are necessarily broad and
highly abstract. The standard though does not have to be spelled out
specifically. It could be implied from the policy and purpose of the act
considered as a whole. We believe and so hold that the necessary
standards are set forth in Section 1 of the 1959 Medical Act: "the
standardization and regulation of medical education" and in Section 5
(a) and 7 of the same Act, the body of the statute itself, and that these
considered together are sufficient compliance with the requirements of
the non-delegation principle.
The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

DECS vs. SAN DIEGO G.R. No. 89572 12/21/89

FACTS: San Diego is a graduate of UE with a degree
of Bachelor of Science in Zoology. He claims that he
took the NMAT three times and flunked it as many
times. When he applied to take it again, DECS
rejected his application on the basis of MECS Order
No. 12, Series of 1972 which states that “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.” He then went to the Regional Trial Court of
Valenzuela, Metro Manila, to compel his admission to
the test. Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong declared the
challenged order invalid and granted the petition of
San Diego and held that the petitioner had been
deprived of his right to pursue a medical education
through an arbitrary exercise of the police power.
 The image part with relationship ID rId3 was not found in the file.

ISSUES: 1. WON the three-flunk rule is a violation of the right to

pursue a medical education through an arbitrary exercise of the
police power.

2. WON The three-flunk rule is a violation of the right to

equal protection clause.

HELD: NO. The proper exercise of the police power requires the
concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful method. The
subject of the challenged regulation is certainly within the ambit
of the police power. It is the right and indeed the responsibility of
the State to insure that the medical profession is not infiltrated
by incompetents to whom patients may unwarily entrust their
lives and health. The method employed by the challenged
regulation is not irrelevant to the purpose of the law nor is it
arbitrary or oppressive. The three-flunk rule is intended to
insulate the medical schools and ultimately the medical
profession from the intrusion of those not qualified to be
doctors. While every person is entitled to aspire to be a doctor,
he does not have a constitutional right to be a doctor.
The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

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 image part with relationship ID rId3 was not found in the file.

ARTICLE III
THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS;

REGISTRATION OF PHYSICIANS

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION (PRC)

- created by a Presidential Decree
- regulates and supervises the practice of
professionals through 42 regulatory boards
including the Board of Medicine
- It has the following functions:
• Executive
• Quasi-Judicial
• Quasi-Legislative
BOARD OF MEDICINE
- Board of Medical Examiners
- Under the supervision of the PRC
Section 8. Prerequisite to the Practice
of Medicine

No person shall engage in the practice

of medicine in the Philippines unless
he is:
1. at least twenty-one years of age;
2. has satisfactorily passed the
corresponding Board Examination;
and
3. is a holder of a valid Certificate of
Registration duly issued to him by
the Board of Medical Examiners 20
BOARD OF MEDICINE vs OTA G.R. No. 166097 7/14/08

FACTS: Yasuyuki Ota is a Japanese national, married to a

Filipina, who has continuously resided in the Philippines for
more than 10 years. He graduated from Bicol Christian
College of Medicine on with a degree of Doctor of Medicine.
After successfully completing a one-year post graduate
internship training at the Jose Reyes Memorial Medical
Center, he filed an application to take the medical board
examinations in order to obtain a medical license. He was
required by the 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.
Respondent submitted a duly notarized English translation of
the Medical Practitioners Law of Japan duly authenticated by
the Consul General of the Philippine Embassy to Japan, thus,
he was allowed to take the Medical Board Examinations
which he subsequently passed.
Inspite of all these, the Board of Medicine of the PRC, denied
respondent's request for a license to practice medicine in the
Philippines on the ground that the Board believes that no
genuine reciprocity can be found in the law of Japan as there is
no Filipino or foreigner who can possibly practice there.

ISSUE: WON Ota, a Japanese national, should be allowed to

practice Medicine here in the Philippines.

HELD: YES. R.A. No. 2382 states that, [T]he applicant shall
submit] competent and conclusive documentary evidence,
confirmed by the DFA, showing that his country's existing laws
permit citizens of the Philippines to practice the profession [of
medicine] under the [same] rules and regulations governing
citizens thereof. It is not stated that it must first be proven that a
Filipino has been granted license and allowed to practice his
profession in said country before a foreign applicant may be
given license to practice in the Philippines. Here, Respondent has
satisfactorily complied with all the requirements
The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

Section 17. Rules and regulations

The Board of Medical Examiners, with the

approval of the Commissioner of Civil
Service, shall

1. promulgate such rules and regulations as

may be necessary for the proper conduct
of the examinations,
2. correction of examination papers, and
3. registration of physicians.
 The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

Sec. 9. Candidates for Board Examinations

(1) a citizen of the Philippines or a citizen of any foreign
country who has submitted competent and
conclusive documentary evidence, confirmed by the
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;
(2) be of good moral character;
(3) of sound mind;
(4) not have been convicted by a court of competent
jurisdiction of any offense involving moral turpitude;
(5) a holder of the degree of Doctor of Medicine or its
equivalent conferred by a college of medicine duly
recognized by the Government; and
(6) must have completed a calendar year of technical
training known as internship
G.R. No. L-24119 August 8, 1925
FELIX MARQUEZ vs THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS
FACTS: Marquez is a graduate of the Chicago Medical
College, having received the degree of M.D. in 1922. In 1923
the Board of Medical Examiners accepted favorably the
applications of candidates for the Board Examinations from
said school.
In the year 1924 Marquez applied to take the Board Exams
but they have denied him admission on the ground that the
Chicago Medical College, where the petitioner graduated,
has been classified as a Class C medical college by the
National Medical State Board of the United States.
Marquez, seeks to obtain a writ of mandamus against the
Board of Medical Examiners, requiring them to admit the
petitioner to the physicians' examinations on the ground
that his 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, not by those in force at the time
he filed his application for admission
ISSUE: WON the writ of Mandamus should be issued and
allow Marquez to take the Medical Board Exam.

HELD: NO. The issue of 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. Otherwise, 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.
The image part with relationship ID rId3 was not found in the file.

OATH TAKING AND CONFERMENT CEREMONIES

- Hippocratic Oath and Administrative Oath

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION
- issued by the PRC
- entitles the physician to practice the medical
profession in the Philippines
- issued to those who have satisfactorily complied
with the requirements of the Board of Medicine
 The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

Sec. 20. Issuance of Certificates of

Registration
The Commissioner of Civil Service, the chairman, the
members and the Secretary of the Board of Medical
Examiners shall sign and issue certificates of
registration to those who have satisfactorily complied
with the requirements of the Board.

Grounds for Refusal of Certificates of

Registration:
1. convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction of
any criminal offense involving moral turpitude
2. has been found guilty of immoral or dishonorable
conduct after the investigation by the Board of
Medical Examiners,
3. has been declared to be of unsound mind.
The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

Sec. 22. Administrative investigations

In addition to the functions provided for in the
preceding sections, the Board of Medical Examiners
shall perform the following duties:
(1) to administer oath to physicians who qualified in
the examinations;
(2) to study the conditions affecting the practice of
medicine in all parts of the Philippines;
(3) to exercise the powers conferred upon it by this
article with the view of maintaining the ethical
and professional standards of the medical
profession,
(4) to subpoena or subpoena duces tecum witnesses
for all purposes required in the discharge of its
duties; and
(5) to promulgate, with the approval of the
Commissioner of Civil Service, such rules and
regulations as it may deem necessary
 The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

PRC vs. DE GUZMAN et al GR 144681 6/21/04

FACTS: The respondents are all graduates of the Fatima

College of Medicine. They passed the Physician Licensure
Examination conducted. Petitioner PRC then released their
names as successful examinees in the medical licensure
examination.
Shortly thereafter, the Board observed that the grades of the
79 successful examinees from Fatima College in the two most
difficult subjects in the medical licensure exam, Biochemistry
and Obstetrics and Gynecology, were unusually and
exceptionally high and 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.
Board issued Resolution, withholding the registration as
physicians of all the examinees from the Fatima College of
Medicine and asked the NBI to investigate.
The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

NBI found that "the questionable passing rate of Fatima

examinees in the Physician Examination leads to the
conclusion that the Fatima examinees gained early access to
the test questions."Board issued Resolution, charged the
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.

Respondents filed a special civil action for mandamus RTC

which was granted. It ordered the petitioners to administer
the physician’s oath to respondents and enter their names in
the rolls of the PRC.

Court of Appeals sustained the RTC’s decision. It held that they

all passed the said examination. Having fulfilled the
requirements of Republic Act No. 2382, they should be allowed
to take their oaths as physicians and be registered in the rolls
of the PRC.
 The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

ISSUE: WON the Court of Appeals committed a reversible

error of law in sustaining the judgment of the trial court
that respondents are entitled to a writ of mandamus.

HELD: YES. The appellate court relied on a single provision,

Section 20 of Rep. Act No. 2382, in concluding that the
petitioners had the ministerial obligation to administer the
Hippocratic Oath to respondents and register them as
physicians 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." 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 of
the Medical Act of 1959
 Under the second paragraph of Section 22, the Board is vested
The image part with relationship ID rId2 was not found in the file.

with the power to conduct administrative investigations and

"disapprove applications for examination or registration,". In this
case, after the investigation, the Board filed before the PRC, Adm.
Case against the respondents to ascertain their moral and mental
fitness to practice medicine. The BOARD decided to CANCEL the
respondents[’] examination papers in the Physician Licensure
Examinations given and further DEBARS them from taking any
licensure examination for a period of ONE (1) YEAR from the date
of the promulgation of the DECISION.

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 "capable of
dispelling doubt or ignorance." Gleaned from Board Resolution,
the students did not "satisfactorily passed" the licensure
examinations. The Board instead sought to nullify the examination
results obtained by the respondents.
 GROUNDS FOR REPRIMAND, SUSPENSION, OR
REVOCATION OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
1. Conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction of any
criminal offense involving moral turpitude;
2. Immoral or dishonorable conduct;
3. Insanity;
4. Fraud in the acquisition of the certificate of registration;
5. Gross negligence, ignorance or incompetence in the
practice of his or her profession resulting in an injury to
or death of the patient;
6. Addiction to alcoholic beverages or to any habit forming
drug rendering him or her incompetent to practice his or
her profession, or to any form of gambling;
7. False or extravagant or unethical advertisements wherein
other things than his name, profession, limitation of
practice, clinic hours, office and home address, are
mentioned;
8. Performance of or aiding in any criminal abortion;
9. Knowingly issuing any false medical certificate;
10.Issuing any statement or spreading any news or rumor
which is derogatory to the character and reputation of
another physician without justifiable motive;
11.Aiding or acting as a dummy of an unqualified or
unregistered person to practice medicine;
12.Violation of any provision of the Code of Ethics as
approved by the Philippine Medical Association.

Refusal of a physician to attend a patient in

danger of death is not a sufficient ground for
revocation or suspension of his registration
certificate if there is a risk to the physician's life.
 PROCEDURE / RULES
FILING OF CHARGES W/IN 5 DAYS THE BOARD SHALL CONDUCT
UNDER OATH RESPONDENT MD WILL BE INVESTIGATION W/IN 5
FURNISHED W/ A COPY DAYS

CA / SC CERTIORARI

BEFORE AFTER
30 DAYS DECISION 30 DAYS
OFFICE OF COMMIS-
THE SIONER
PRESIDENT OF CIVIIL
SERVICE APPEAL FINAL

CA / SC APPEAL Notwithstanding an appeal or petition for review of the

decision of the OP, the same is executory and the records
will be remanded to the department where the case
originated, unless the CA or the SC issues an order staying
the execution of the decision.
 RIGHTS OF RESPONDENTS
1. The respondent physician shall be
entitled to be represented by counsel or
be heard by himself or herself;

2. to have a speedy and public hearing

3. to confront and to cross-examine

witnesses against him or her;

4. all other rights guaranteed by the

Constitution and provided for in the Rules
of Court.
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.
GOMEZ VS. VENTURA GR 32441 3/ 29 /1930
FACTS: Gomez has been charged guilty by the Board of
Examiners for violation of the Opium Law thus forever
revoking the plaintiff’s license to practice medicine and
surgery. Gomez filed for the issuance of the writ of
mandamus to annul the decision of the Board.
ISSUE: WON the decision of the Board should be annulled
and be set aside.
HELD: NO. It is a rule of general application that mandamus
will not lie to review or control the acts of executive officers
and boards of state in respect of matters as to which they
are vested with discretion, even though the exercise of this
discretion requires the interpretation of statutes. Where
public officials exercise their discretion, it is said that their
conclusions, although disputable, are impregnable to
mandamus. Here, the powers vested in the Board of
Medical Examiners to suspend or revoke a physician’s
certificate of registration partake of a quasi-judicial
character, which involves the use of discretion.
THANK YOU
FOR
LISTENING!!!