Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 144681
June 21, 2004
PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION (PRC), CAIRMAN ERMOGENES P. PO!RE, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER ARMAN"O PASCUAL, !OAR" OF ME"ICINE, CAIRMAN RO"OLFO P. "E GU#MAN, JOSE S. RAMIRE#, JUANITO !. !ILLOTE, RU!EN R. POLICARPIO, E"GAR"O T. FERNAN"O $n% RICAR"O ". FULGENCIO II, petitioners, vs.
ARLENE &. "E GU#MAN, &IOLETA &. MENESES, CELERINA S. NA&ARRO, JOSE RAMONCITO P. NA&ARRO, ARNEL &. ERRERA $n% GERAL"INE ELI#A!ET M. PAGILAGAN, ELNORA R. RA'UENO, MARISSA A. REGO"ON, LAURA M. SANTOS, ARANGALAN ". SERRANO, "ANILO A. &ILLA&ER, MARIA ROSARIO L. LEONOR, ALICIA S. LI#ANO, MARITEL M. ECI&ERRI,I, !ERNA"ETTE ECI&ERR !ERN A"ETTE T. MEN"O#A, FERNAN"O F. MAN"APA MAN"APAT T, ALELI A. GOLLAAN, GOLLAAN, ELCIN C. ARRIOLA, ERMINIGIL"A E. CONEJOS, SALL !. !UNAGAN, ROGELIO !. ANCETA, OSCAR . PA"UA, JR., E&ELN ". GRAJO, E&ELN S. ACOSTA, MARGARITA !ELIN"A L. &ICENCIO, &ALENTINO P. AR!OLE"A, E&ELN O. RAMOS, ACILLES J. PERALTA, CORA#ON M. CRU#, LEU&INA P. CICO, JOSEP A. JAO, MA. LUISA S. GUTIERRE#, L"IA C. CAN, OPELIA C. I"ALGO, FERNAN"O T. CRU#, MEL&IN M. USITA, RAFAEL I. TOLENTINO, GRACE E. U, CERL R. TRIGUERO, MICAEL L. SERRANO, FE"ERICO L. CASTILLO, MELITA J. CA*E"O, SAMUEL !. !ANGO, !ERNAR"ITA !. S, GLORIA T. JULAR!AL, FRE"ERIC ". FRANCISCO, CARLOS M. !ERNAR"O, JR., U!ERT S. NA#ARENO, CLARISSA !. !ACLIG, "AMIN"A G. !ONTUAN, !ERNA"ETTE . CA!UAT, NANC J. CA&E#, MARIO ". CUARESMA, ERNESTO L. CUE, E&ELN C. CUN"ANGAN, RONEIL R. "E&ERATUR"A, "E&ERATUR"A, "ERILEEN ". "ORA"O, SAI!#UR N. E""ING, &IOLETA C. FELIPE, ERMINIO &. FERNAN"E#, JR., MARIA &ICTORIA M. LACSAMANA, NORMA G. LAFA&ILLA, RU! !. LANTIN, MA. ELOISA '. MALLARI, CLARISA SJ. NICOLAS, PERCI&AL . PANGILINAN, ARNULFO A. SAL&A"OR, RO!ERT !. SANCE#, MERL ". STA. ANA $n% OLAN"A P. UNICA, respondents. DECISION
TINGA, J.: his petition for revie! under Rule "# of the $%%& Rules of Civil Procedure see's to nullif( the D E C I S I O N ,$ dated Ma( $), *+++, of the Court of ppeals in C-.R. SP No. /&*0/. he appellate court affir1ed the 2ud31ent * dated Dece1ber $%, $%%", of the Re3ional rial Court 4RC5 of Manila, 6ranch #*, in Civil Case No. %/-))#/+. he trial court allo!ed the respondents to ta'e their ph(sician7s oath and to re3ister as dul( licensed ph(sicians. E8uall( challen3ed is the R E S O L U T I O N / pro1ul3ated on u3ust *#, *+++ of the Court of ppeals, den(in3 petitioners7 Motion for Reconsideration. he facts of this case are as follo!s9 he respondents are all 3raduates of the :ati1a Colle3e of Medicine, Valen;uela Cit(, Metro Metro Manila. he( passed the Ph(sician
Shortl( thereafter, the 6oard observed that the 3rades of the sevent(-nine successful e=a1inees fro1 :ati1a Colle3e in the t!o 1ost difficult sub2ects in the 1edical licensure e=a1, 6ioche1istr( 46io-Che15 and Obstetrics and (necolo3( 4O6-(ne5, !ere unusuall( and e=ceptionall( hi3h. Eleven :ati1a e=a1inees scored $++> in 6io-Che1 and ten 3ot $++> in O6-(ne, another eleven 3ot %%> in 6io-Che1, and t!ent(-one scored %%> in O6(ne. he 6oard also observed that 1an( of those !ho passed fro1 :ati1a 3ot 1ar's of %#> or better in both sub2ects, and no one 3ot a 1ar' lo!er than %+>. co1parison of the perfor1ances of the candidates fro1 other schools !as 1ade. he 6oard observed that stran3el(, the unusuall( hi3h ratin3s !ere true onl( for :ati1a Colle3e e=a1inees. It !as a record-brea'in3 pheno1enon in the histor( of the Ph(sician
AERE:ORE, this petition is RNED. ccordin3l(, the !rit of preli1inar( 1andator( in2unction issued b( the lo!er court a3ainst petitioners is hereb( nullified and set aside. SO ORDERED.& rlene V. de u;1an, et al., then elevated the fore3oin3 Decision to this Court in .R. No. $$*/$#. In our Resolution dated Ma( */, $%%", !e denied the petition for failure to sho! reversible error on the part of the appellate court. Mean!hile, on Nove1ber **, $%%/, durin3 the pendenc( of the instant petition, the pre-trial conference in Civil Case No. %/-))#/+ !as held. hen, the parties, a3reed to reduce the testi1onies of their respective !itnesses to s!orn 8uestions-and-ans!ers. his !as !ithout pre2udice to crosse=a1ination b( the opposin3 counsel. On Dece1ber $/, $%%/, petitioners7 counsel failed to appear at the trial in the 1ista'en belief that the trial !as set for Dece1ber $#. he trial court then ruled that petitioners !aived their ri3ht to cross-e=a1ine the !itnesses. On ?anuar( *&, $%%", counsel for petitioners filed a Manifestation and Motion statin3 the reasons for her non-appearance and pra(in3 that the cross-e=a1ination of the !itnesses for the opposin3 parties be reset. he trial court denied the 1otion for lac' of notice to adverse counsel. It also denied the Motion for Reconsideration that follo!ed on the 3round that adverse counsel !as notified less than three 4/5 da(s prior to the hearin3. Mean!hile, to prevent the PRC and the 6oard fro1 proceedin3 !ith d1. Case No. $)0&, the respondents herein 1oved for the issuance of a restrainin3 order, !hich the lo!er court 3ranted in its Order dated pril ", $%%". he petitioners then filed !ith this Court a petition for certiorari doc'eted as .R. No. $$#&+", to annul the Orders of the trial court dated Nove1ber $/, $%%/, :ebruar( *0, $%%", and pril ", $%%". e referred the petition to the Court of ppeals !here it !as doc'eted as C-.R. SP No. /"#+). On u3ust /$, $%%", the appellate court decided C-.R. SP No. /"#+) as follo!s9 AERE:ORE, the present petition for certiorari !ith pra(er for te1porar( restrainin3 orderFpreli1inar( in2unction is RNED and the Orders of Dece1ber $/, $%%/, :ebruar( &, $%%", :ebruar( *0, $%%", and pril ", $%%" of the RC-Manila, 6ranch #*, and all further proceedin3s ta'en b( it in Special Civil ction No. %/-))#/+ are hereb( DEC<RED N@<< and VOID. he said RC-Manila is ordered to allo! petitioners7 counsel to cross-e=a1ine the respondents7 !itnesses, to allo! petitioners to present their evidence in due course of trial, and thereafter to decide the case on the 1erits on the basis of the evidence of the parties. Costs a3ainst respondents. I IS SO ORDERED. 0 he trial !as then set and notices !ere sent to the parties. da( before the first hearin3, on Septe1ber **, $%%", the petitioners filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion pra(in3 for the partial reconsideration of the appellate court7s decision in C-.R. SP No. /"#+), and for the outri3ht dis1issal of Civil Case No. %/-))#/+. he petitioners as'ed for the suspension of the proceedin3s.
In its Order dated Septe1ber */, $%%", the trial court 3ranted the aforesaid 1otion, cancelled the scheduled hearin3 dates, and reset the proceedin3s to October *$ and *0, $%%". Mean!hile, on October *#, $%%", the Court of ppeals denied the partial 1otion for reconsideration in C-.R. SP No. /"#+). hus, petitioners filed !ith the Supre1e Court a petition for revie! doc'eted as .R. No. $$&0$&, entitled Professional Re3ulation Co11ission, et al. v. Court of ppeals, et al. On Nove1ber $$, $%%", counsel for the petitioners failed to appear at the trial of Civil Case No. %/))#/+. @pon 1otion of the respondents herein, the trial court ruled that herein petitioners !aived their ri3ht to cross-e=a1ine the herein respondents. rial !as reset to Nove1ber *0, $%%". On Nove1ber *#, $%%", petitioners7 counsel 1oved for the inhibition of the trial court 2ud3e for alle3ed partialit(. On Nove1ber *0, $%%", the da( the Motion to Inhiit !as to be heard, petitioners failed to appear. hus, the trial court denied the Motion to Inhiit and declared Civil Case No. %/))#/+ dee1ed sub1itted for decision. On Dece1ber $%, $%%", the trial court handed do!n its 2ud31ent in Civil Case No. %/-))#/+, the fallo of !hich reads9 AERE:ORE, 2ud31ent is rendered orderin3 the respondents to allo! the petitioners and intervenors 4e=cept those !ith asteris's and footnotes in pa3es $ G * of this decision5 sic, % to ta'e the ph(sician7s oath and to re3ister the1 as ph(sicians. It should be 1ade clear that this decision is !ithout pre2udice to an( ad1inistrative disciplinar( action !hich 1a( be ta'en a3ainst an( of the petitioners for such causes and in the 1anner provided b( la! and consistent !ith the re8uire1ents of the Constitution as an( other professionals. No costs. SO ORDERED.$+ s a result of these develop1ents, petitioners filed !ith this Court a petition for revie! on certiorari doc'eted as .R. No. $$0"/&, entitled Professional Re3ulation Co11ission v. Aon. David . Nitafan, pra(in3 inter alia, that 4$5 .R. No. $$0"/& be consolidated !ith .R. No. $$&0$&H 4*5 the decision of the Court of ppeals dated u3ust /$, $%%" in C-.R. SP No. /"#+) be nullified for its failure to decree the dis1issal of Civil Case No. %/-))#/+, and in the alternative, to set aside the decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. %/-))#/+, order the trial court 2ud3e to inhibit hi1self, and Civil Case No. %/-))#/+ be re-raffled to another branch. On Dece1ber *), $%%", the petitioners herein filed their Notice of !""eal $$ in Civil Case No. %/))#/+, thereb( elevatin3 the case to the Court of ppeals, !here it !as doc'eted as C-.R. SP No. /&*0/. In our Resolution of ?une &, $%%#, .R. No. $$0"/& !as consolidated !ith .R. No. $$&0$&. On ?ul( %, $%%0, !e disposed of .R. Nos. $$&0$& and $$0"/& in this !ise9 AERE:ORE, the petition in .R. No. $$&0$& is DISMISSED for bein3 1oot. he petition in .R. No. $$0"/& is li'e!ise DISMISSED on the 3round that there is a pendin3 appeal before
the Court of ppeals. ssistant Solicitor eneral 1paro M. Cabota2e-an3 is advised to be 1ore circu1spect in her dealin3s !ith the courts as a repetition of the sa1e or si1ilar acts !ill be dealt !ith accordin3l(. SO ORDERED.$* hile C-.R. SP No. /&*0/ !as a!aitin3 disposition b( the appellate court, rnel V. Aerrera, one of the ori3inal petitioners in Civil Case No. %/-))#/+, 2oined b( t!ent(-seven intervenors, to !it9 :ernando :. Mandapat, Ophelia C. Aidal3o, 6ernadette . Mendo;a, Rub( 6.
II AEAER OR NO AE PEIION :OR MNDM@S CO@
It bears e1phasi;in3 herein that petitioner-appellees and intervenor-appellees have full( co1plied !ith all the statutor( re8uire1ents for ad1ission into the licensure e=a1inations for ph(sicians conducted and ad1inistered b( the respondent-appellants on :ebruar( $*, $", *+ and *$, $%%/. Stress, too, 1ust be 1ade of the fact that all of the1 successfull( passed the sa1e e=a1inations.** he crucial 8uer( no! is !hether the Court of ppeals erred in concludin3 that petitioners should allo! the respondents to ta'e their oaths as ph(sicians and re3ister the1, steps !hich !ould enable respondents to practice the 1edical profession */ pursuant to Section *+ of the Medical ct of $%#% he appellate court relied on a sin3le provision, Section *+ of Rep. ct No. */0*, in concludin3 that the petitioners had the 1inisterial obli3ation to ad1inister the Aippocratic Oath to respondents and re3ister the1 as ph(sicians. 6ut it is a basic rule in statutor( construction that each part of a statute should be construed in connection !ith ever( other part to produce a har1onious !hole, not confinin3 construction to onl( one section. *" he intent or 1eanin3 of the statute should be ascertained fro1 the statute ta'en as a !hole, not fro1 an isolated part of the provision. ccordin3l(, Section *+, of Rep. ct No. */0*, as a1ended should be read in con2unction !ith the other provisions of the ct. hus, to deter1ine !hether the petitioners had the 1inisterial obli3ation to ad1inister the Aippocratic Oath to respondents and re3ister the1 as ph(sicians, recourse 1ust be had to the entiret( of the Medical ct of $%#%. careful readin3 of Section *+ of the Medical ct of $%#% discloses that the la! uses the !ord BshallB !ith respect to the issuance of certificates of re3istration. hus, the petitioners B +$-- si3n and issue certificates of re3istration to those !ho have satisfactoril( co1plied !ith the re8uire1ents of the 6oard.B In statutor( construction the ter1 BshallB is a !ord of co11and. It is 3iven i1perative 1eanin3. hus, !hen an e=a1inee satisfies the re8uire1ents for the 3rant of his ph(sician7s license, the 6oard is obli3ed to ad1inister to hi1 his oath and re3ister hi1 as a ph(sician, pursuant to Section *+ and par. 4$5 of Section ** *# of the Medical ct of $%#%. Ao!ever, the surroundin3 circu1stances in this case call for serious in8uir( concernin3 the satisfactor( co1pliance !ith the 6oard re8uire1ents b( the respondents. he unusuall( hi3h scores in the t!o 1ost difficult sub2ects !as pheno1enal, accordin3 to :r. Nebres, the consultant of PRC on the 1atter, and raised 3rave doubts about the inte3rit(, if not validit(, of the tests. hese doubts have to be appropriatel( resolved. @nder the second para3raph of Section **, the 6oard is vested !ith the po!er to conduct ad1inistrative investi3ations and Bdisapprove applications for e=a1ination or re3istration,B pursuant to the ob2ectives of Rep. ct No. */0* as outlined in Section $ *) thereof. In this case, after the investi3ation, the 6oard filed before the PRC, d1. Case No. $)0& a3ainst the respondents to ascertain their 1oral and 1ental fitness to practice 1edicine, as re8uired b( Section % *& of Rep. ct No. */0*. In its Decision dated ?ul( $, $%%&, the 6oard ruled9 AERE:ORE, the 6ORD hereb( CNCE
issuance of the certificates to the1. he !rit of 1anda1us does not lie to co1pel perfor1ance of an act !hich is not dul( authori;ed. he respondents nevertheless ar3ue that under Section *+, the 6oard shall not issue a certificate of re3istration onl( in the follo!in3 instances9 4$5 to an( candidate !ho has been convicted b( a court of co1petent 2urisdiction of an( cri1inal offense involvin3 1oral turpitudeH 4*5 or has been found 3uilt( of i11oral or dishonorable conduct after the investi3ation b( the 6oardH or 4/5 has been declared to be of unsound 1ind. he( aver that none of these circu1stances are present in their case. Petitioners re2ect respondents7 ar3u1ent. e are infor1ed that in 6oard Resolution No. *), *% dated ?ul( *$, $%%/, the 6oard resolved to file char3es a3ainst the e=a1inees fro1 :ati1a Colle3e of Medicine for Bi11oralit(, dishonest(, fraud, and deceit in the Obstetrics-(necolo3( and 6ioche1istr( e=a1inations.B It li'e!ise sou3ht to cancel the e=a1ination results obtained b( the e=a1inees fro1 the :ati1a Colle3e. Section 0/+ of Rep. ct No. */0* prescribes, a1on3 others, that a person !ho aspires to practice 1edicine in the Philippines, 1ust have Bsatisfactoril( passed the correspondin3 6oard E=a1ination.B Section **, in turn, provides that the oath 1a( onl( be ad1inistered Bto ph(sicians !ho 8ualified in the e=a1inations.B he operative !ord here is Bsatisfactoril(,B defined as Bsufficient to 1eet a condition or obli3ationB or Bcapable of dispellin3 doubt or i3norance.B /$ leaned fro1 6oard Resolution No. *), the licensin3 authorit( apparentl( did not find that the respondents Bsatisfactoril( passedB the licensure e=a1inations. he 6oard instead sou3ht to nullif( the e=a1ination results obtained b( the respondents. '$ On the Right Of The Res"ondents To &e Registered !s Ph%sicians he function of 1anda1us is not to establish a ri3ht but to enforce one that has been established b( la!. If no le3al ri3ht has been violated, there can be no application of a le3al re1ed(, and the !rit of 1anda1us is a le3al re1ed( for a le3al ri3ht. /* here 1ust be a !ell-defined, clear and certain le3al ri3ht to the thin3 de1anded. // It is lon3 established rule that a license to practice 1edicine is a privile3e or franchise 3ranted b( the 3overn1ent./" It is true that this Court has upheld the constitutional ri3ht /# of ever( citi;en to select a profession or course of stud( sub2ect to a fair, reasonable, and e8uitable ad1ission and acade1ic re8uire1ents. /) 6ut li'e all ri3hts and freedo1s 3uaranteed b( the Charter, their e=ercise 1a( be so re3ulated pursuant to the police po!er of the State to safe3uard health, 1orals, peace, education, order, safet(, and 3eneral !elfare of the people. /& hus, persons !ho desire to en3a3e in the learned professions re8uirin3 scientific or technical 'no!led3e 1a( be re8uired to ta'e an e=a1ination as a prere8uisite to en3a3in3 in their chosen careers. his re3ulation ta'es particular pertinence in the field of 1edicine, to protect the public fro1 the potentiall( deadl( effects of inco1petence and i3norance a1on3 those !ho !ould practice 1edicine. In a previous case, it 1a( be recalled, this Court has ordered the 6oard of Medical E=a1iners to annul both its resolution and certificate authori;in3 a Spanish sub2ect, !ith the de3ree of
authorit( to both forbid and 3rant such privile3e in accordance !ith certain conditions. Such conditions 1a( not, ho!ever, re8uire 3ivin3 up ones constitutional ri3hts as a condition to ac8uirin3 the license."+ @nder the vie! that the le3islature cannot validl( besto! an arbitrar( po!er to 3rant or refuse a license on a public a3enc( or officer, courts !ill 3enerall( stri'e do!n license le3islation that vests in public officials discretion to 3rant or refuse a license to carr( on so1e ordinaril( la!ful business, profession, or activit( !ithout prescribin3 definite rules and conditions for the 3uidance of said officials in the e=ercise of their po!er. "$ In the present case, the afore1entioned 3uidelines are provided for in Rep. ct No. */0*, as a1ended, !hich prescribes the re8uire1ents for ad1ission to the practice of 1edicine, the 8ualifications of candidates for the board e=a1inations, the scope and conduct of the e=a1inations, the 3rounds for den(in3 the issuance of a ph(sician7s license, or revo'in3 a license that has been issued. Veril(, to be 3ranted the privile3e to practice 1edicine, the applicant 1ust sho! that he possesses all the 8ualifications and none of the dis8ualifications. :urther1ore, it 1ust appear that he has full( co1plied !ith all the conditions and re8uire1ents i1posed b( the la! and the licensin3 authorit(. Should doubt taint or 1ar the co1pliance as bein3 less than satisfactor(, then the privile3e !ill not issue. :or said privile3e is distin3uishable fro1 a 1atter of ri3ht, !hich 1a( be de1anded if denied. hus, !ithout a definite sho!in3 that the aforesaid re8uire1ents and conditions have been satisfactoril( 1et, the courts 1a( not 3rant the !rit of 1anda1us to secure said privile3e !ithout th!artin3 the le3islative !ill. ($ On the Ri"eness of the Petition for Manda*us
appeal the unfavorable 2ud31ent to the PRCH 4b5 should the PRC rulin3 still be unfavorable, to elevate the 1atter on appeal to the Office of the PresidentH and 4c5 should the( still be unsatisfied, to as' for a revie! of the case or to brin3 the case to court +ia a special civil action of certiorari. hus, as a rule, 1anda1us !ill not lie !hen ad1inistrative re1edies are still available. ") Ao!ever, the doctrine of e=haustion of ad1inistrative re1edies does not appl( !here, as in this case, a pure 8uestion of la! is raised. "& On this issue, no reversible error 1a(, thus, be laid at the door of the appellate court in C-.R. SP No. /&*0/, !hen it refused to dis1iss Civil Case No. %/-))#/+. s !e earlier pointed out, herein respondents rnel V. Aerrera, :ernando :. Mandapat, Ophelia C. Aidal3o, 6ernadette . Mendo;a, Rub( 6.
EREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTE". ccordin3l(, 4$5 the assailed decision dated Ma( $), *+++, of the Court of ppeals, in C-.R. SP No. /&*0/, !hich affir1ed the 2ud31ent dated Dece1ber $%, $%%", of the Re3ional rial Court of Manila, 6ranch #*, in Civil Case No. %/-))#/+, orderin3 petitioners to ad1inister the ph(sician7s oath to herein respondents as !ell as the resolution dated u3ust *#, *+++, of the appellate court, den(in3 the petitioners7 1otion for reconsideration, are REVERSED and SE SIDEH and 4*5 the !rit of 1anda1us, issued in Civil Case No. %/-))#/+, and affir1ed b( the appellate court in C-.R. SP No. /&*0/ is N@<
