 Look for any administrative case or criminal cases involving dental professional.

The title of the case is THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. GUALBERTO SANTOS as the defendant-appellant which took part on September 6, 1933.

 Provide a short background of the case.

In this case, a medical practitioner, was convicted of a violation of sections 1453 and 1473 (c) of
the Administrative Code, and was sentenced to pay a fine of P25, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and the costs, and was also ordered to pay the tax for the period during which he practiced the
profession of dentistry illegally. The defendant is a physician residing in Bulan, Sorsogon, who has there
practiced his profession and paid the corresponding privilege taxes. In 1931, he announced himself
publicly as a medico-dentista. In his office he extracted and treated teeth. Among other things, he placed
crowns on the teeth of his patients. For work of this nature, he received remuneration.

 Provide details of how it was resolved by the Board of Dentistry, or of the regional trial court or the
Supreme Court.
The rule of the court is that the holder of a license to practice medicine who has paid the privilege
tax corresponding thereto is not entitled to practice dentistry without first having obtained a certificate of
registration as dentist and having paid the privilege tax therefor. According, the judgment appealed from
will be affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant.

 Provide details of the law/s, memorandum order, administrative order that was used to resolve the
case.
The law used to resolve the case is chap. 117, p. 127, Gen. Laws 1907 which says that Practicing
dentistry defined. —Sec. 2. Section two thousand three hundred and fifteen (2315) of chapter thirty-five
(35) of the Revised Laws of the State of Minnesota for the year IP-OS shall be amended as follows: “All
persons shall be said to be practicing dentistry, within the meaning of this section, who shall use the word
or letters "Dentist" or "D. D. S," or any other letters or title in connection with his name which in any
manner represents him as engaged in the practice of dentistry or who shall advertise or permit it to be
done by sign, card, circular, handbill, newspaper or otherwise that he can or will attempt to perform
dental operations of any kind, treat diseases or lesions of the human jaw or replace lost teeth by artificial
ones or attempt to correct malposition thereof, or who shall for a fee, salary or other reward, paid or to be
paid either to himself or to another person, perform dental operations of any kind, treat diseases or lesions
of the human jaw or teeth, or replace lost teeth by artificial ones or attempt to correct malposition thereof.
This shall not apply to students enrolled in and regularly attending any dental college; his acts done under
 the direct supervision of a preceptor or a licensed dentist, shall not be subject to the provisions of this
subdivision. “

Application for register—how made—license may be revoked. —Sec. 3. Section two thousand
three hundred and sixteen (2316) of chapter thirty-five of the Revised Laws of the State of Minnesota for
the year 1905 shall be amended to read as follows: “A person not already a registered dentist of the state
desiring to practice dentistry therein shall apply to the secretary of the board for examination and pay a
fee of $10, which in no case shall be refunded. At the next regular meeting he shall present himself for
examination and produce his diploma from some dental college of good standing, of which standing the
board shall be the judges. The board shall give the applicant such an elementary practical examination as
to thoroughly test his fitness for the practice, and include therein the subjects of anatomy, physiology,
chemistry, -Materia medica, therapeutics, metallurgy, histology, pathology and operative, surgical and
mechanical dentistry; and the applicant shall he required to demonstrate his skill in operative and
mechanical dentistry. If the applicant successfully passes the examination he shall be registered by the
board as a licensed dentist and supplied with a certificate of registration, signed by all members of the
board of dental examiners. Provided, that any dentist who has been in legal practice in another state
having and maintaining an equal standard of laws regulating the practice of dentistry with this state for
five years or more,- and is a reputable dentist of good moral character, and is desirous of removing to this
state and deposits in person with the board of dental examiners a certificate from the examining board of
the state in which he is registered, certifying to the fact of his registration and that he is of good moral
character and professional attainments, may, at the discretion of the board, be granted a license to practice
in this state without further theoretical examination. The board, upon hearing, after twenty days' notice
thereof, may revoke the license of any one who, with intent to deceive the public, shall practice dentistry
under an assumed name. It shall be no defense for a person prosecuted for practicing dentistry under one
name without a license that he shall have been licensed under a different name, unless it be shown that
such practice was without intent to defraud or deceived. “

 Submit a short comprehensive documentary analysis of the case.

A medical practitioner, was convicted of a violation of sections 1453 and 1473 (c) of the
Administrative Code. The defendant is a physician residing in Bulan, Sorsogon, who has there practiced
his profession and paid the corresponding privilege taxes. In 1931, he announced himself publicly as
a medico-dentista. In his office he extracted and treated teeth. Among other things, he placed crowns on
the teeth of his patients. For work of this nature, he received remuneration.
 The defendant was sentenced to pay a fine of P25, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and the costs, and was also ordered to pay the tax for the period during which he practiced the
profession of dentistry illegally. The court ruled that the holder of a license to practice medicine who has
paid the privilege tax corresponding thereto is not entitled to practice dentistry without first having
obtained a certificate of registration as dentist and having paid the privilege tax therefor. According, the
judgment appealed from will be affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant.

Reference

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1934/sep1934/gr_40100_1934.html