POLICE POWER – Whether or not Petitioner can be compelled to allow Respondents to take the oath as physicians after passing the physician licensure examination despite the finding of Petitioner that there is an anomaly in their grades
FACTS: -
a) Petitioner’s Arguments (PRC, et al – Win) - Argued that for a writ of mandamus to issue, the applicant must have a well-defined, clear and certain legal right to the thing demanded. hus, mandamus may be availed of only when the duty sought to be performed is a ministerial and not a discretionary one. !owever, the issuance of a license to engage in the practice of medicine becomes discretionary on the PR" if there exists some doubt that the successful examinee has not fully met the re#uirements of the law -Appealed to $" the decision of "A
!) Res"on#ent’s Arguments ($e %u&man, et al – Lost) -%iled a writ of mandamus to compel Petitioner to allow them to take the oath as physicians after passing the physician licensure examination despite the finding of Petitioner that there is an anomaly because all of the Respondents got exceptional grades in the two most difficult sub&ects in the medical medical licensure licensure exam, 'iochemistry 'iochemistry ('io-"hem) ('io-"hem) and *bstetrics *bstetrics and +ynecology +ynecology (*'+yne) -"A promulgate a decision in their favor
ISS'E: - Whether or not Petitioner can be compelled to allow Respondents to take the oath as physicians after passing the physician licensure examination despite the finding of Petitioner that there is an anomaly in their grades
R'LI%: Conlusion: - Petitioner cannot be compelled. he appeal is granted
Rule * he function of mandamus is not to establish a right but to enforce one that has been established by law. f 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. / here must be a welldefined, clear and certain legal right to the thing demanded. t is long established rule that a license to practice medicine is a privilege or franchise granted by the government.0 -t is true that this "ourt has upheld the constitutional right1 of every citi2en to select a profession or course of study sub&ect to a fair, reasonable, and e#uitable admission and academic re#uirements.3 'ut like all rights and freedoms guaranteed by the "harter, their exercise may be so regulated pursuant to the police power of the $tate to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and general welfare of the people.4 hus, persons who desire to engage in the learned professions re#uiring scientific or technical knowledge may be re#uired to take an examination as a prere#uisite to engaging in their chosen careers. his 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.
A""liation - n this case, Conlusion - hus, Petitioner cannot be compelled. he appeal is granted
Republic of the Philippines
S'PRE+E CO'RT 5anila $6"*78 89$*7
%R o --./
0une 1, 122-
PROFESSIOAL RE%'LATIO CO++ISSIO (PRC), C3AIR+A 3ER+O%EES P PO4RE, ASSOCIATE CO++ISSIOER AR+A$O PASC'AL, 4OAR$ OF +E$ICIE, C3AIR+A RO$OLFO P $E %'5+A, 0OSE S RA+IRE5, 0'AITO 4 4ILLOTE, R'4E R POLICARPIO, E$%AR$O T FERA$O an# RICAR$O $ F'L%ECIO II, petitioners, vs.
ARLEE 6 $E %'5+A, 6IOLETA 6 +EESES, CELERIA S A6ARRO, 0OSE RA+OCITO P A6ARRO, AREL 6 3ERRERA an# %ERAL$IE ELI5A4ET3 +
PA%ILA%A, ELORA R RA7'EO, +ARISSA A RE%O$O, LA'RA + SATOS, 8ARA%ALA $ SERRAO, $AILO A 6ILLA6ER, +ARIA ROSARIO L LEOOR, ALICIA S LI5AO, +ARITEL + EC3I6ERRI, 4ERA$ETTE T +E$O5A, FERA$O F +A$APAT, ALELI A %OLLA9A, ELCI C ARRIOLA, 3ER+II%IL$A E COE0OS, SALL9 4 4'A%A, RO%ELIO 4 AC3ETA, OSCAR 3 PA$'A, 0R, E6EL9 $ %RA0O, E6EL9 S ACOSTA, +AR%ARITA 4ELI$A L 6ICECIO, 6ALETIO P AR4OLE$A, E6EL9 O RA+OS, AC3ILLES 0 PERALTA, CORA5O + CR'5, LE'6IA P C3ICO, 0OSEP3 A 0AO, +A L'ISA S %'TIERRE5, L9$IA C C3A, OP3ELIA C 3I$AL%O, FERA$O T CR'5, +EL6I + 'SITA, RAFAEL I TOLETIO, %RACE E '9, C3ER9L R TRI%'ERO, +IC3AEL L SERRAO, FE$ERICO L CASTILLO, +ELITA 0 CAE$O, SA+'EL 4 4A%O9, 4ERAR$ITA 4 S9, %LORIA T 0'LAR4AL, FRE$ERIC8 $ FRACISCO, CARLOS + 4ERAR$O, 0R, 3'4ERT S A5AREO, CLARISSA 4 4ACLI%, $A9+I$A % 4OT'9A, 4ERA$ETTE 3 CA4'3AT, AC9 0 C3A6E5, +ARIO $ C'ARES+A, ERESTO L C'E, E6EL9 C C'$A%A, R3OEIL R $E6ERAT'R$A, $ERILEE $ $ORA$O, SAI45'R E$$I%, 6IOLETA C FELIPE, 3ER+IIO 6 FERA$E5, 0R, +ARIA 6ICTORIA + LACSA+AA, OR+A % LAFA6ILLA, R'49 4 LATI, +A ELOISA 7 +ALLARI, CLARISA S0 ICOLAS, PERCI6AL 3 PA%ILIA, AR'LFO A SAL6A$OR, RO4ERT 4 SAC3E5, +ERL9 $ STA AA an# 9OLA$A P 'ICA, respondents. 86"$* 7
TI%A , J.: his petition for review under Rule 01 of the :;;4 Rules of "ivil Procedure seeks to nullify the D E C I S I O N ,: dated 5ay :3, /<<<, of the "ourt of Appeals in "A-+.R. $P 7o. 4/=. he appellate court affirmed the &udgment/ dated 8ecember :;, :;;0, of the Regional rial "ourt (R") of 5anila, 'ranch 1/, in "ivil "ase 7o. ;-331<. he trial court allowed the respondents to take their physician>s oath and to register as duly licensed physicians. 6#ually challenged is the R E S O L U T I O N promulgated on August /1, /<<< of the "ourt of Appeals, denying petitioners> 5otion for Reconsideration. he facts of this case are as follows he respondents are all graduates of the %atima "ollege of 5edicine, 9alen2uela "ity, 5etro 5anila. hey passed the Physician ?icensure 6xamination condu cted in %ebruary :;; by the 'oard of 5edicine ('oard). Petitioner Professional Regulation "ommission (PR") then released their names as successful examinees in the medical licensure examination.
$hortly thereafter, the 'oard observed that the grades of the seventy-nine successful examinees from %atima "ollege in the two most difficult sub&ects in the medical licensure exam, 'iochemistry ('io-"hem) and *bstetrics and +ynecology (*'-+yne), were unusually and exceptionally high. 6leven %atima examinees scored :<<@ in 'io-"hem and ten got :<<@ in *'-+yne, another eleven got ;;@ in 'io-"hem, and twenty-one scored ;;@ in *'-+yne. he 'oard also observed that many of those who passed from %atima got marks of ;1@ or better in both sub&ects, and no one got a mark lower than ;<@. A comparison of the performances of the candidates from other schools was made. he 'oard observed that strangely, the unusually high ratings were true only for %atima "ollege examinees. t was a record-breaking phe nomenon in the history of the Physician ?icensure 6xamination. *n une 4, :;;, the 'oard issued Resolution 7o. :;, withholding the registration as physicians of all the examinees from the %atima "ollege of 5edicine.0 he PR" asked the 7ational 'ureau of nvestigation (7') to investigate whether any anomaly or irregularity marred the % ebruary :;; Physician ?icensure 6xamination. Prior to the 7' investigation, the 'oard re#uested %r. 'ienvenido %. 7ebres, $.., an expert mathematician and authority in statistics, and later president of the Ateneo de 5anila Bniversity, to conduct a statistical analysis of the results in 'io-"hem and *b-+yne of the said examination. *n une :<, :;;, %r. 7ebres submitted his report. !e reported that a comparison of the scores in 'io-"hem and *b-+yne, of the %atima "ollege examinees with those of examinees from 8e ?a $alle Bniversity and Perpetual !elp "ollege of 5edicine showed that the scores of %atima "ollege examinees were not only incredibly high but unusually clustered close to each other. !e concluded that there must be some unusual reason creating the clustering of scores in the two sub&ects. t must be a cause Cstrong enough to eliminate the normal variations that one should expect from the examinees Dof %atima "ollegeE in terms of talent, effort, energy, etc.C1 %or its part, the 7' found that Cthe #uestionable passing rate of %atima examinees in the D:;;E Physician 6xamination leads to the conclusion that the %atima examinees gained early access to the test #uestions.C3 *n uly 1, :;;, respondents Arlene 9. 8e +u2man, 9ioleta 9. 5eneses, "elerina $. 7avarro, ose Ramoncito P. 7avarro, Arnel 9. !errera, and +eraldine 6li2abeth 5. Pagilagan (Arlene 9. 8e +u2man et al., for brevity) filed a special civil action for mandamus, with prayer for preliminary mandatory in&unction docketed as "ivil "ase 7o. ;-331< with the Regional rial "ourt (R") of 5anila, 'ranch 1/. heir petition was adop ted by the other respondents as intervenors.
5eanwhile, the 'oard issued Resolution 7o. /3, dated uly /:, :;;, charging respondents with Cimmorality, dishonest conduct, fraud, and deceitC in connection with the 'io-"hem and *b+yne examinations. t recommended that the test results of the %atima examinees be nullified. he case was docketed as Adm. "ase 7o. :3=4 by the PR". *n uly /=, :;;, the R" issued an Order in "ivil "ase 7o. ;-331< granting the preliminary mandatory in&unction sought by the respondents. t ordered the petitioners to administer the physician>s oath to Arlene 9. 8e +u2man et al., and enter their names in the rolls of the PR". he petitioners then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the "ourt of Appeals to set aside the mandatory in&unctive writ, docketed as "A-+.R. $P 7o. :4<:. *n *ctober /:, :;;, the appellate court decided "A-+.R. $P 7o. :4<:, with the dispositive portion of the Decision ordaining as follows W!6R6%*R6, this petition is +RA768. Accordingly, the writ of preliminary mandatory in&unction issued by the lower court against petitioners is hereby nullified and set aside. $* *R86R68.4 Arlene 9. de +u2man, et al., then elevated the foregoing Decision to this "ourt in +.R. 7o. ::/:1. n our Resolution dated 5ay /, :;;0, we denied the petition for failure to show reversible error on the part of the appellate court. 5eanwhile, on 7ovember //, :;;, during the pendency of the instant petition, the pre-trial conference in "ivil "ase 7o. ;-331< was held. hen, the parties, agreed to reduce the testimonies of their respective witnesses to sworn #uestions-and-answers. his was without pre&udice to cross-examination by the opposing counsel. *n 8ecember :, :;;, petitioners> counsel failed to appear at the trial in the mistaken belief that the trial was set for 8ecember :1. he trial court then ruled that petitioners waived their right to cross-examine the witnesses. *n anuary /4, :;;0, counsel for petitioners filed a Manifestation and Motion stating the reasons for her non-appearance and praying that the cross-examination of the witnesses for the opposing parties be reset. he trial court denied the motion for lack of notice to adverse counsel. t also denied the Motion for Reconsideration that followed on the ground that adverse counsel was notified less than three () days prior to the hearing.
5eanwhile, to prevent the PR" and the 'oard from proceeding with Adm. "ase 7o. :3=4, the respondents herein moved for the issuance of a restraining order, which the lower court granted in its Order dated April 0, :;;0. he petitioners then filed with this "ourt a petition for certiorari docketed as +.R. 7o. ::14<0, to annul the Orders of the trial court dated 7ovember :, :;;, %ebruary /=, :;;0, and April 0, :;;0. We referred the petition to the "ourt of Appeals where it was docketed as "A-+.R. $P 7o. 01<3. *n August :, :;;0, the appellate court decided "A-+.R. $P 7o. 01<3 as follows W!6R6%*R6, the present petition for certiorari with prayer for temporary restraining orderFpreliminary in&unction is +RA768 and the *rders of 8ecember :, :;;, %ebruary 4, :;;0, %ebruary /=, :;;0, and April 0, :;;0 of the R"-5anila, 'ranch 1/, and all further proceedings taken by it in $pecial "ivil Action 7o. ;-331< are hereby 86"?AR68 7B?? and 9*8. he said R"-5anila is ordered to allow petitioners> counsel to cross-examine the respondents> witnesses, to allow petitioners to present their evidence in due course of trial, and thereafter to decide the case on the merits on the basis of the evidence of the parties. "osts against respondents. $ $* *R86R68.= he trial was then set and notices were sent to the parties. A day before the first hearing, on $eptember //, :;;0, the petitioners filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion praying for the partial reconsideration of the app ellate court>s decision in "A-+.R. $P 7o. 01<3, and for the outright dismissal of "ivil "ase 7o. ;-331<. he petitioners asked for the suspension of the proceedings. n its Order dated $eptember /, :;;0, the trial court granted the aforesaid motion, cancelled the scheduled hearing dates, and reset the proceedings to *ctober /: and /=, :;;0. 5eanwhile, on *ctober /1, :;;0, the "ourt of Appeals denied the partial motion for reconsideration in "A-+.R. $P 7o. 01<3. hus, petitioners filed with the $upreme "ourt a petition for review docketed as +.R. 7o. ::4=:4, entitled Professional Regulation "ommission, et al. v. "ourt of Appeals, et al. *n 7ovember ::, :;;0, counsel for the petitioners failed to appear at the trial of "ivil "ase 7o. ;-331<. Bpon motion of the respondents herein, the trial court ruled that herein petitioners waived their right to cross-examine the herein respondents. rial was reset to 7ovember /=, :;;0.
*n 7ovember /1, :;;0, petitioners> counsel moved for the inhibition of the trial court &udge for alleged partiality. *n 7ovember /=, :;;0, the day the Motion to Inhiit was to be heard, petitioners failed to appear. hus, the trial court denied the Motion to Inhiit and declared "ivil "ase 7o. ;-331< deemed submitted for decision. *n 8ecember :;, :;;0, the trial court handed down its &udgment in "ivil "ase 7o. ;-331<, the fallo of which reads W!6R6%*R6, &udgment is rendered ordering the respondents to allow the petitioners and intervenors (except those with asterisks and footnotes in pages : G / of this decision) DsicE,; to take the physician>s oath and to register them as physicians. t should be made clear that this decision is without pre&udice to any administrative disciplinary action which may be taken against any of the petitioners for such causes and in the manner provided by law and consistent with the re#uirements of the "onstitution as any other professionals. 7o costs. $* *R86R68.:< As a result of these developments, petitioners filed with this "ourt a petition for review o n certiorari docketed as +.R. 7o. ::=04, entitled Professional Regulation "o mmission v. !on. 8avid +. 7itafan, praying inter alia, that (:) +.R. 7o. ::=04 be consolidated with +.R. 7o. ::4=:4H (/) the decision of the "ourt of Appeals dated August :, :;;0 in "A-+.R. $P 7o. 01<3 be nullified for its failure to decree the dismissal of "ivil "ase 7o. ;-331<, and in the alternative, to set aside the decision of the trial court in "ivil "ase 7o. ;-331<, order the trial court &udge to inhibit himself, and "ivil "ase 7o. ;-331< be re-raffled to another branch. *n 8ecember /3, :;;0, the petitioners herein filed their Notice of !""eal :: in "ivil "ase 7o. ;331<, thereby elevating the case to the "ourt of Appeals, where it was docketed as "A-+.R. $P 7o. 4/=. n our Resolution of une 4, :;;1, +.R. 7o. ::=04 was consolidated with +.R. 7o. ::4=:4. *n uly ;, :;;=, we disposed of +.R. 7os. ::4=:4 and ::=04 in this wise W!6R6%*R6, the petition in +.R. 7o. ::4=:4 is 8$5$$68 for being moot. he petition in +.R. 7o. ::=04 is likewise 8$5$$68 on the ground that there is a pending appeal before the "ourt of Appeals. Assistant $olicitor +eneral Amparo 5. "abota&e-ang is advised to be more circumspect in her dealings with the courts as a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with accordingly.
$* *R86R68.:/ While "A-+.R. $P 7o. 4/= was awaiting disposition by the appellate court, Arnel 9. !errera, one of the original petitioners in "ivil "ase 7o. ;-331<, &oined by twenty-seven intervenors, to wit %ernando %. 5andapat, *phelia ". !idalgo, 'ernadette . 5endo2a, Ruby '. ?antin-an, %ernando . "ru2, 5arissa A. Regodon, 5a. 6loisa I. 5allari-?argo2a, "heryl R. riguero, oseph A. ao, 'ernadette !. "abuhat, 6velyn $. Acosta-"abanes, ?aura 5. $antos, 5aritel 5. 6chiverri, 'ernadette ". 6scusa, "arlosito ". 8omingo, Alicia $. ?i2ano, 6lnora R. Ra#uenoRabaino, $aib2ur 7. 6dding, 8erileen 8. 8orado-6dding, Robert '. $anche2, 5aria Rosario ?. ?eonor-?acandula, +eraldine 6li2abeth 5. Pagilagan-Palma, 5argarita 'elinda ?. 9icencio+amilla, !erminigilda 6. "one&os, ?euvina P. "hico-Paguio, 6lcin ". Arriola-*campo, and ose Ramoncito P. 7avarro, manifested that they were no longer interested in proceeding with the case and moved for its dismissal. A similar manifestation and motion was later filed by intervenors 5ary ean . Jeban-5erlan, 5ichael ?. $errano, 7orma +. ?afavilla, Arnulfo A. $alvador, 'elinda ". Rabara, Jolanda P. Bnica, 8ayminda +. 'ontuyan, "larissa '. 'aclig, 5a. ?uisa $. +utierre2, Rhoneil R. 8everaturda, Aleli A. +ollayan, 6velyn ". "undangan, %rederick 8. %rancisco, 9ioleta 9. 5eneses, 5elita . "aKedo, "larisa $. 7icolas, %ederico ?. "astillo, Larangalan 8. $errano, 8anilo A. 9illaver, +race 6. By, ?ydia ". "han, and 5elvin 5. Bsita. he "ourt of Appeals ruled that its decision in "A-+.R. $P 7o. 4/= would not apply to them. *n 5ay :3, /<<<, the "ourt of Appeals decided "A-+.R. $P 7o. 4/=, with the following fallo, to wit W!6R6%*R6, finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, We hereby A%%R5 the same and 8$5$$ the instant appeal. 7o pronouncement as to costs. $* *R86R68.: n sustaining the trial court>s decision, the appellate court ratiocinated that the respondents complied with all the statutory re#uirements for admission into the licensure examination for physicians in %ebruary :;;. hey all passed the said examination. !aving fulfilled the re#uirements of Republic Act 7o. /=/,:0 they should be allowed to take their oaths as physicians and be registered in the rolls of the PR". !ence, this petition raising the following issues W!6!6R *R 7* R6$P*7867$ !A96 A 9A?8 "AB$6 *% A"*7 %*R 5A78A5B$ A+A7$ P6*76R$ 7 !6 ?+! *% !6 R6$*?B*7 *%
!$ !*7*RA'?6 "*BR 7 +.R. 7*. ::/:1 A%%R57+ !6 "*BR *% APP6A?$> 86"$*7 86"?AR7+ !A % 696R !6R6 $ $*56 8*B' A$ * !6 5*RA? %76$$ *% 6MA5766$, !6 $$BA7"6 *% ?"67$6 * PRA""6 568"76 $ 7* AB*5A"A??J +RA768 * !6 $B""6$$%B? 6MA5766$. W!6!6R *R 7* !6 P6*7 %*R 5A78A5B$ "*B?8 PR*"668 86$P6 !6 P67867"J *% A857$RA96 "A$6 7*. :3=4, W!"! WA$ PR6"$6?J ?*8+68 * 866R576 !6 5*RA? %76$$ *% R6$P*7867$ * '6"*56 8*"*R$.:1 o our mind, the only issue is 8id the "ourt of Appeals commit a reversible error of law in sustaining the &udgment of the trial court that respondents are entitled to a writ of mandamusN
R'LI% he petitioners submit that a writ of mandamus will not lie in this case. hey point out that for a writ of mandamus to issue, the applicant must have a well-defined, clear and certain legal right to the thing demanded and it is the duty of the respondent to perform the act re#uired. hus, mandamus may be availed of only when the duty sought to be performed is a ministerial and not a discretionary one. he petitioners argue that the appellate court>s decision in "A-+.R. $P 7o. 4/= upholding the decision of the trial court in "ivil "ase 7o. ;-331< overlooked its own pronouncement in "A-+.R. $P 7o. :4<:. he "ourt of Appeals held in "A-+.R. $P 7o. :4<: that the issuance of a license to engage in the practice of medicine becomes discretionary on the PR" if there exists some doubt that the successful examinee has not fully met the re#uirements of the law. he petitioners stress that this "ourt>s Resolution dated 5ay /0, :;;0 in +.R. 7o. ::/:1 held that there was no showing Cthat the "ourt of Appeals had committed any reversible error in rendering the #uestioned &udgmentC in "A-+.R. $P 7o. :4<:. he petitioners point out that our Resolution in +.R. 7o. ::/:1 has long become final and executory. Respondents counter that having passed the :;; licensure examinations for physicians, the petitioners have the obligation to administer to them the oath as physicians and to issue their certificates of registration as physicians pursuant to $ection /<:3 of Rep. Act 7o. /=/. he "ourt of Appeals in "A-+.R. $P 7o. 4/=, found that respondents complied with all the re#uirements of Rep. Act 7o. /=/. %urthermore, respondents were admitted by the 5edical 'oard to the licensure examinations and had passed the same. !ence, pursuant to $ection /< of Rep. Act 7o. /=/, the petitioners had the obligation to administer their oaths as physicians and register them.
5andamus is a command issuing from a court of competent &urisdiction, in the name of the state or the sovereign, directed to some inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or person re#uiring the performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty results from the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed, or from ope ration of law.:4 $ection of Rule 31:= of the :;;4 Rules of "ivil Procedure outlines two situations when a writ of mandamus may issue, when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully (:) neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically en&oins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or stationH or (/) excludes another from the use and en&oyment of a right or office to which the other is entitled. We shall discuss the issues successively. #$ On The Existence of a Dut% of the &oard of Medicine To Issue Certificates of Registration as Ph%sicians under Re"$ !ct No$ '()'$ %or mandamus to prosper, there must be a showing that the officer, board, or official concerned, has a clear legal duty, not involving discretion.:; 5oreover, there must be statutory authority for the performance of the act,/< and the performance of the duty has been refused./: hus, it must be pertinently asked now 8id petitioners have the duty to administer the !ippocratic *ath and register respondents as physicians under the 5edical Act of :;1;N As found by the "ourt of Appeals, on which we agree on the basis of the records t bears emphasi2ing herein that petitioner-appellees and intervenor-appellees have fully complied with all the statutory re#uirements for admission into the licensure examinations for physicians conducted and administered by the respondent-appellants on %ebruary :/, :0, /< and /:, :;;. $tress, too, must be made of the fact that all of them successfully passed the same examinations.// he crucial #uery now is whether the "ourt of Appeals erred in concluding that petitioners should allow the respondents to take their o aths as physicians and register them, steps which would enable respondents to practice the medical profession/ pursuant to $ection /< of the 5edical Act of :;1;N he appellate court relied on a single provision, $ection /< of Rep. Act 7o. /=/, in conc luding that the petitioners had the ministerial obligation to administer the !ippocratic *ath to respondents and register them as physicians. 'ut it is a b asic rule in statutory construction that each part of a statute should be construed in connection with every other part to produce a harmonious whole, not confining construction to only one section./0 he intent or meaning of the statute should be ascertained from the statute taken as a whole, not from an isolated part of the provision. Accordingly, $ection /<, of Rep. Act 7o. /=/, as amended should be read in
con&unction with the other provisions of the Act. hus, to determine whether the petitioners had the ministerial obligation to administer the !ippocratic *ath to respondents and register them as physicians, recourse must be had to the entirety of the 5edical Act of :;1;. A careful reading of $ection /< of the 5edical Act of :;1; discloses that the law uses the wo rd CshallC with respect to the issuance of certificates of registration. hus, the petitioners Cs;all sign and issue certificates of registration to those who have satisfactorily complied with the re#uirements of the 'oard.C n statutory construction the term CshallC is a word of command. t is given imperative meaning. hus, when an examinee satisfies the re#uirements for the grant of his physician>s license, the 'oard is obliged to administer to him his oath and register him as a physician, pursuant to $ection /< and par. (:) of $ection ///1 of the 5edical Act of :;1;. !owever, the surrounding circumstances in this case call for serious in#uiry concerning the satisfactory compliance with the 'oard re#uirements by the respondents. he unusually high scores in the two most difficult sub&ects was phenomenal, according to %r. 7ebres, the consultant of PR" on the matter, and raised grave doubts about the integrity, if not validity, of the tests. hese doubts have to be appropriately resolved. Bnder the second paragraph of $ection //, the 'oard is vested with the power to conduct administrative investigations and Cdisapprove applications for examination or registration,C pursuant to the ob&ectives of Rep. Act 7o. /=/ as outlined in $ection :/3 thereof. n this case, after the investigation, the 'oard filed before the PR", Adm. "ase 7o. :3=4 against the respondents to ascertain their moral and mental fitness to practice medicine, as re#uired by $ection ;/4 of Rep. Act 7o. /=/. n its Decision dated uly :, :;;4, the 'oard ruled W!6R6%*R6, the '*AR8 hereby "A7"6?$ the respondentsD>E examination papers in the Physician ?icensure 6xaminations given in %ebruar y :;; and further 86'AR$ them from taking any licensure examination for a period of *76 (:) J6AR from the date of the promulgation of this 86"$*7. hey may, if they so desire, apply for the scheduled examinations for physicians after the lapse of the period imposed by the '*AR8. $* *R86R68./= Bntil the moral and mental fitness of the respondents could be ascertained, according to petitioners, the 'oard has discretion to hold in abeyance the administration of the !ippocratic *ath and the issuance of the certificates to them. he writ of mandamus does not lie to co mpel performance of an act which is not duly authori2ed. he respondents nevertheless argue that under $ection /<, the 'oard shall not issue a certificate of registration only in the following instances (:) to any cand idate who has been convicted by a
court of competent &urisdiction of any criminal offense involving moral turpitudeH (/) or has been found guilty of immoral or dishonorable conduct after the investigation by the 'oardH or () has been declared to be of unsound mind. hey aver that none of these circumstances are present in their case. Petitioners re&ect respondents> argument. We are informed that in 'oard Resolution 7o. /3,/; dated uly /:, :;;, the 'oard resolved to file charges against the examinees from %atima "ollege of 5edicine for Cimmorality, dishonesty, fraud, and deceit in the *bstetrics-+ynecology and 'iochemistry examinations.C t likewise sought to cancel the examination results obtained by the examinees from the %atima "ollege. $ection =< of Rep. Act 7o. /=/ prescribes, among others, that a person who aspires to practice medicine in the Philippines, must have Csatisfactorily passed the corresponding 'oard 6xamination.C $ection //, in turn, provides that the oath may only be administered Cto physicians who #ualified in the examinations.C he operative word here is Csatisfactorily,C defined as Csufficient to meet a condition or obligationC or Ccapable of dispelling doubt or ignorance.C: +leaned from 'oard Resolution 7o. /3, the licensing authority apparently did not find that the respondents Csatisfactorily passedC the licensure examinations. he 'oard instead sought to nullify the examination results obtained by the respondents. '$ On the Right Of The Res"ondents To &e Registered !s Ph%sicians he function of mandamus is not to establish a right but to enforce one that has been established by law. f 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. / here must be a well-defined, clear and certain legal right to the thing demanded. t is long established rule that a license to practice medicine is a privilege or franchise granted by the government.0 t is true that this "ourt has upheld the constitutional right1 of every citi2en to select a profession or course of study sub&ect to a fair, reasonable, and e#uitable admission and academic re#uirements.3 'ut like all rights and freedoms guaranteed by the "harter, their exercise may be so regulated pursuant to the police power of the $tate to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and general welfare of the people.4 hus, persons who desire to engage in the learned professions re#uiring scientific or technical knowledge may be re#uired to take an examination as a prere#uisite to engaging in their chosen careers. his 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. n a previous case, it may be recalled, this "ourt has ordered the 'oard of 5edical 6xaminers to annul both its resolution and certificate authori2ing a $panish sub&ect, with the degree of ?icentiate in 5edicine and $urgery from the Bniversity of 'arcelona, $pain, to practice medicine in the Philippines, without first passing the examination re#uired by the Philippine 5edical Act.= n another case
worth noting, we upheld the power of the $tate to upgrade the selection of applicants into medical schools through admission tests.; t must be stressed, nevertheless, that the power to regulate the exercise of a profession or pursuit of an occupation cannot be exercised by the $tate 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. $uch conditions may not, however, re#uire giving up ones constitutional rights as a condition to ac#uiring the license.0< Bnder 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.0: n the present case, the aforementioned guidelines are provided for in Rep. Act 7o. /=/, as amended, which prescribes the re#uirements for admission to the practice of medicine, the #ualifications 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. 9erily, to be granted the privilege to practice medicine, the applicant must show that he possesses all the #ualifications and none of the dis#ualifications. %urthermore, it must appear that he has fully complied with all the conditions and re#uirements imposed by the law and the licensing authority. $hould doubt taint or mar the compliance as being less than satisfactory, then the privilege will not issue. %or said privilege is distinguishable from a matter of right, which may be demanded if denied. hus, without a definite showing that the aforesaid re#uirements and conditions have been satisfactorily met, the courts may not grant the writ of mandamus to secure said privilege without thwarting the legislative will. ($ On the Ri"eness of the Petition for Manda*us ?astly, the petitioners herein contend that the "ourt of Appeals should have dismissed the petition for mandamus below for being premature. hey argue that the administrative remedies had not been exhausted. he records show that this is not the first time that petitioners have sought the dismissal of "ivil "ase 7o. ;-331<. his issue was raised in +.R. 7o. ::14<0, which petition we referred to the "ourt of Appeals, where it was docketed as "A-+.R. $P 7o. 01<3. *n motion for reconsideration in "A-+.R. $P 7o. 01<3 , the appellate court denied the motion to dismiss on the ground that the prayers for the nullification of the order of the trial court and the dismissal of "ivil "ase 7o. ;-331< were inconsistent reliefs. n +.R. 7o. ::=04, the petitioners sought to nullify the decision of the "ourt of Appeals in "A-+.R. $P 7o. 01<3 insofar as it did not order the dismissal of "ivil "ase 7o. ;-331<. n our consolidated decision, dated uly ;, :;;=, in +.R. 7os. ::4=:4 G ::=04, this "ourt speaking through ustice 'ellosillo opined that
ndeed, the issue as to whether the "ourt of Appeals erred in not ordering the dismissal of "ivil "ase 7o. ;-331< sought to be resolved in the instant petition has been rendered meaningless by an event taking place prior to the filing of this petition and d enial thereof should follow as a logical conse#uence.0/ here is no longer any &usticiable controversy so that any declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.0 t should be recalled that in its decision of :; 8ecember :;;0 the trial court granted the writ of mandamus prayed for by private respondents, which decision was received by petitioners on /< 8ecember :;;0. hree () days after, or on / 8ecember :;;0, p etitioners filed the instant petition. 'y then, the remedy available to them was to appeal the decision to the "ourt of Appeals, which they in fact did, by filing a notice of appeal on /3 8ecember :;;0.00 he petitioners have shown no cogent reason for us to reverse the aforecited ruling. 7o r will their reliance upon the doctrine of the exhaustion of administrative remedies in the instant case advance their cause any. $ection /301 of the 5edical Act of :;1; provides for the administrative and &udicial remedies that respondents herein can avail to #uestion Resolution 7o. /3 of the 'oard of 5edicine, namely (a) appeal the unfavorable &udgment to the PR"H (b) should the PR" ruling still be unfavorable, to elevate the matter on appeal to the *ffice of the PresidentH and (c) should they still be unsatisfied, to ask for a review of the case or to bring the case to court +ia a special civil action of certiorari. hus, as a rule, mandamus will not lie when administrative remedies are still available.03 !owever, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply where, as in this case, a pure #uestion of law is raised.04 *n this issue, no reversible error may, thus, be laid at the door of the appellate court in "A-+.R. $P 7o. 4/=, when it refused to dismiss "ivil "ase 7o. ;-331<. As we earlier pointed out, herein respondents Arnel 9. !errera, %ernando %. 5andapat, *phelia ". !idalgo, 'ernadette . 5endo2a, Ruby '. ?antin-an, %ernando . "ru2, 5arissa A. Regodon, 5a. 6loisa I. 5allari-?argo2a, "heryl R. riguero, oseph A. ao, 'ernadette !. "abuhat, 6velyn $. Acosta-"abanes, ?aura 5. $antos, 5aritel 5. 6chiverri, 'ernadette ". 6scusa, "arlosito ". 8omingo, Alicia $. ?i2ano, 6lnora R. Ra#ueno-Rabaino, $aib2ur 7. 6dding, 8erileen 8. 8orado-6dding, Robert '. $anche2, 5aria Rosario ?eonor-?acandula, +eraldine 6li2abeth 5. Pagilagan-Palma, 5argarita 'elinda ?. 9icencio-+amilla, !erminigilda 6. "one&os, ?euvina P. "hico-Paguio, 6lcin ". Arriola-*campo, and ose Ramoncito P. 7avarro manifested to the "ourt of Appeals during the pendency of "A-+.R. $P 7o. 4/=, that they were no longer interested in proceeding with the case and moved for its dismissal insofar as they were concerned. A similar manifestation and motion were later filed by intervenors 5ary ean . Jeban-5erlan, 5ichael ?. $errano, 7orma +. ?afavilla, Arnulfo A. $alvador, 'elinda ". Rabarra, Jolanda P. Bnica, 8ayminda +. 'ontuyan, "larissa '. 'aclig, 5a. ?uisa $. +utierre2, Rhoneil R. 8everaturda, Aleli A. +ollayan, 6velyn ". "undangan, %rederick 8. %rancisco,
9ioleta 9. 5eneses, 5elita . "aKedo, "larisa $. 7icolas, %ederico ?. "astillo, Larangalan 8. $errano, 8anilo A. 9illaver, +race 6. By, ?ydia ". "han, and 5elvin 5. Bsita. %ollowing these manifestations and motions, the appellate court in "A-+.R. $P 7o. 4/= decreed that its ruling would not apply to them. hus, inasmuch as the instant case is a petition for review of the appellate court>s ruling in "A-+.R. $P 7o. 4/=, a decision which is inapplicable to the aforementioned respondents will similarly not apply to them. As to Achilles . Peralta, 6velyn *. Ramos, $ally '. 'unagan, Rogelio '. Ancheta, *scar !. Padua, r., 6velyn 8. +ra&o, 9alentino P. Arboleda, "arlos 5. 'ernardo, r., 5ario 8. "uaresma, 9ioleta ". %elipe, Percival !. Pangilinan, "ora2on 5. "ru2 and $amuel '. 'angoy, herein decision shall not apply pursuant to the *rders of the trial court in "ivil "ase 7o. ;-331<, dropping their names from the suit. "onse#uently, this Decision is binding only on the remaining respondents, namely Arlene 9. de +u2man, "elerina $. 7avarro, Rafael . olentino, 'ernardita '. $y, +loria . ularbal, !ubert $. 7a2areno, 7ancy . "have2, 6rnesto ?. "ue, !erminio 9. %ernande2, r., 5aria 9ictoria 5. ?acsamana and 5erly 8. $ta. Ana, as well as the petitioners.
W3EREFORE, the instant petition is %RATE$ Accordingly, (:) the assailed decision dated 5ay :3, /<<<, of the "ourt of Appeals, in "A-+.R. $P 7o. 4/=, which affirmed the &udgment dated 8ecember :;, :;;0, of the Regional rial "ourt of 5anila, 'ranch 1/, in "ivil "ase 7o. ;-331<, ordering petitioners to administer the physician>s oath to herein respondents as well as the resolution dated August /1, /<<<, of the appellate court, denying the petitioners> motion for reconsideration, are R696R$68 and $6 A$86H and (/) the writ of mandamus, issued in "ivil "ase 7o. ;-331<, and affirmed by the appellate court in "A-+.R. $P 7o. 4/= is 7B??%68 A78 $6 A$86. $* *R86R68. Puno, uisu*ing, !ustria-Martine., and Calle/o, Sr$, 00$, concur.
