REPUBLIC ACT No. 2382THE MEDICAL ACT OF 1959ARTICLE IObjectives and ImplementationSection 1. Objectives. This Act provides for and shall govern (a) the standardization and regulation of medical education; (b) the examination for registration of physicians; and (c) the supervision, control and regulation of the practice of medicine in the Philippines.Section 2. Enforcement. For the purpose of implementing the provisions of this Act, there are created the following agencies: the Board of Medical Education under the Department of Education, and the Board of Medical Examiners under the Commissioner of Civil Service.ARTICLE IIThe Board of Medical Education Its FunctionsSection 3. Composition of Board of Medical Education. The Board of Medical Education shall be composed of the Secretary of Education or his duly authorized representative, as chairman, and the Secretary of Health or his duly authorized representative, the Director of the Bureau of Private Schools or his duly authorized representative, the chairman of the Board of Medical Examiners or his duly authorized representative, a representative of private practitioners, upon recommendation of an acknowledged medical association and a representative chosen by the Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities, as members.The officials acting as chairman and members of the Board of Medical Education shall hold office during their incumbency in their respective positions.Section 4. Compensation and traveling expenses. The chairman and members of the Board of Medical Education shall not be entitled to any compensation except for traveling expenses in connection with their official duties as herein provided.For administrative purposes, the Board shall hold office in the office of its chairman, who may designate a ranking official in the Department of Education to serve as secretary of the Board.Section 5. Functions. The functions of the Board of Medical Education shall be:(a) To determine and prescribe minimum requirements for admission into a recognized college of medicine;(b) To determine and prescribe requirements for minimum physical facilities of colleges of medicine, to wit: buildings, including hospitals, equipment and supplies, apparatus, instruments, appliances, laboratories, bed capacity for instruction purposes, operating and delivery rooms, facilities for out-patient services, and others, used for didactic and practical instructions in accordance with modern trends;(c) To determine and prescribe the minimum number and the minimum qualifications of teaching personnel, including student-teacher ratio and curriculum;(d) To determine and prescribe the number of students who should be allowed to take up the preparatory course taking into account the capacity of the different recognized colleges of medicine. (e) To select, determine and approve hospitals or some departments of the hospitals for training which comply with the minimum specific physical facilities as provided in subparagraph (b) hereof: and(f) To promulgate and prescribe and enforce necessary rules and regulations for the proper implementation of the foregoing functions.Section 6. Minimum required courses. Students seeking admission to the medical course must have a bachelor of science or bachelor of arts degree or their equivalent and must have taken in four years the following subjects with their corresponding number of units:Unit

English12

Latin3

Mathematics, including Accounting and Statistics9

Philosophy, including Psychology and Logic12

Zoology and Botany15

Physics8

Chemistry21

Library Science1

Humanities and Social Sciences12

Twelve units of Spanish shall be required pursuant to Republic Act Numbered Seven hundred nine; but commencing with the academic year nineteen hundred sixty to nineteen hundred sixty-one, twenty-four units of Spanish shall be required pursuant to Republic Act Numbered Eighteen hundred and eighty-one as cultural, social and nationalistic studies.Provided, That the following students may be permitted to complete the aforesaid preparatory medical course in shorter periods as follows:(a) Students whose general average is below eighty-five per cent but without any grade of failure or condition may be allowed to pursue and finish the course in three academic years and the intervening summer sessions; and(b) Students whose general average is eighty-five per cent or over may be permitted to finish the course in three academic years by allowing them to take each semester the overload permitted to bright students under existing regulations of the Bureau of Private Schools.Provided, That upon failure to maintain the general average of eighty-five per cent, students under (b) shall automatically revert to the category of students under (a) and those under (a), upon having any grade of failure or condition, shall automatically revert to the category of students required to pursue the preparatory course in four years mentioned above. The medical course shall be at least five years, including not less than eleven rotating internship in an approved hospital, and shall consist of the following subjects:AnatomyPhysiologyBiochemistry and NutritionPharmacologyMicrobiologyParasitologyMedicine and TherapeuticsGenycologyOpthalmology, Otology, Rhinology and LaryngologyPediatricsObstetricsSurgeryPreventive Medicine and Public HealthLegal Medicine, including Medical Jurisprudence and Ethics.Section 7. Admission requirements. The medical college may admit any student to its first year class who has not been convicted by any court of competent jurisdiction of any offense involving moral turpitude, and who presents (a) a certificate showing completion of a standard high school course, (b) a record showing completion of a standard preparatory medical course as herein provided, (c) a certificate of registration as medical student, (d) a certificate of good moral character issued by two former professors in the pre-medicine course, and (e) birth certificate and marriage certificate, if any. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to inhibit any college of medicine from establishing, in addition to the preceding, other entrance requirements that may be deemed admissible. For the purposes of this Act, the term "College of Medicine" shall mean to include faculty of medicine, institute of medicine, school of medicine or other similar institution offering a complete medical course leading to the degree of Doctor of Medicine or its equivalent.Every college of medicine must keep a complete record of enrollment, grades and turnover, and must publish each year a catalogue giving the following information:1. Date of publication 2. Calendar for the academic year 3. Faculty roll indicating whether on full time part time basis 4. Requirements of admission 5. Grading system 6. Requirements for promotion 7. Requirements for graduation 8. Medical hours per academic year by departments 9. Schedule hours per academic year by departments 10. Number of students enrolled in each class.ARTICLE IIITHE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS; REGISTRATION OF PHYSICIANS Section 8. Prerequisite to the practice of medicine. No person shall engage in the practice of medicine in the Philippines unless he is at least twenty-one years of age, has satisfactorily passed the corresponding Board Examination, and is a holder of a valid Certificate of Registration duly issued to him by the Board of Medical Examiners. Section 9. Candidates for board examination. Candidates for Board examinations shall have the following qualifications:(1) He shall be a citizen of the Philippines or a citizen of any foreign country who has submitted competent and conclusive documentary evidence, confirmed by the Department of Foreign Affairs, 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) He shall be of good moral character, showing for this purpose certificate of civil status;(3) He shall be of sound mind;(4) He shall not have been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction of any offense involving moral turpitude; and(5) He shall be a holder of the degree of Doctor of Medicine or its equivalent, conferred by a college of medicine duly recognized by the Department of Education.Section 10. Acts constituting practice of medicine. A person shall be considered as engaged in the practice of medicine (a) who shall, for compensation, fee, salary or reward in any form, paid to him directly or through another, or even without the same, physical examine any person, and diagnose, treat, operate or prescribe any remedy for any human disease, injury, deformity, physical, mental or physical condition or any ailment, real or imaginary, regardless of the nature of the remedy or treatment administered, prescribed or recommended; or (b) who shall, by means of signs, cards, advertisements, written or printed matter, or through the radio, television or any other means of communication, either offer or undertake by any means or method to diagnose, treat, operate or prescribe any remedy for any human disease, injury, deformity, physical, mental or physical condition; or (c) who shall use the title M.D. after his name. Section 11. Exemptions. The preceding section shall not be construed to affect (a) any medical student duly enrolled in an approved medical college or school under training, serving without any professional fee in any government or private hospital, provided that he renders such service under the direct supervision and control of a registered physician; (b) any legally registered dentist engaged exclusively in the practice of dentistry; (c) any duly registered masseur or physiotherapist, provided that he applies massage or other physical means upon written order or prescription of a duly registered physician, or provided that such application of massage or physical means shall be limited to physical or muscular development; (d) any duly registered optometrist who mechanically fits or sells lenses, artificial eyes, limbs or other similar appliances or who is engaged in the mechanical examination of eyes for the purpose of constructing or adjusting eye glasses, spectacles and lenses; (e) any person who renders any service gratuitously in cases of emergency, or in places where the services of a duly registered physician, nurse or midwife are not available; (f) any person who administers or recommends any household remedy as per classification of existing Pharmacy Laws; and (g) any psychologist or mental hygienist in the performance of his duties, provided such performance is done in conjunction with a duly registered physician.Section 12. Limited practice without any certificate of registration. Certificates of registration shall not be required of the following persons: (a) Physicians and surgeons from other countries called in consultation only and exclusively in specific and definite cases, or those attached to international bodies or organization assigned to perform certain definite work in the Philippines provided they shall limit their practice to the specific work assigned to them and provided further they shall secure a previous authorization from the Board of Medical Examiners.(b) Commissioned medical officers of the United States armed forces stationed in the Philippines while rendering service as such only for the members of the said armed forces and within the limit of their own respective territorial jurisdiction.(c) Foreign physicians employed as exchange professors in special branches of medicine or surgery whose service may in the discretion of the Board of Medical Education, be necessary.(d) Medical students who have completed the first four years of medical course, graduates of medicine and registered nurses who may be given limited and special authorization by the Secretary of Health to render medical services during epidemics or national emergencies whenever the services of duly registered physicians are not available. Such authorization shall automatically cease when the epidemic or national emergency is declared terminated by the Secretary of Health.Section 13. The Board of Medical Examiners, its composition and duties. The Board of Medical Examiners shall be composed of six members to be appointed by the President of the Philippines from a confidential list of not more than twelve names approved and submitted by the executive council of the Philippine Medical Association, after due consultation with other medical associations, during the months of April and October of each year. The chairman of the Board shall be elected from among themselves by the member at a meeting called for the purpose. The President of the Philippines shall fill any vacancy that may occur during any examination from the list of names submitted by the Philippine Medical Association in accordance with the provisions of this Act.No examiner shall handle the examinations in more than four subjects or groups of subjects as hereinafter provided. The distribution of subject to each member shall be agreed upon at a meeting called by the chairman for the purpose. The examination papers shall be under the custody of the Commissioner of Civil Service or his duly authorized representative, and shall be distributed to each member of the Board who shall correct, grade, and sign, and submit them to the said Commissioner within one hundred twenty days from the date of the termination of the examinations. A final meeting of the Board for the deliberation and approval of the grades shall be called by the Commissioner of Civil Service immediately after receipt of the records from the members of the Board of Medical Examiners. The secretary of the Board shall submit to the President of the Philippines for approval the names of the successful candidates as having been duly qualified for licensure in alphabetical order, without stating the ratings obtained by each.Section 14. Qualifications of examiners. No person shall be appointed a member of the Board of Medical Examiners unless he or she (1) is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, (2) is a duly registered physician in the Philippines, (3) has been in the practice of medicine for at least ten years, (4) is of good moral character and of recognized standing in the medical profession, (5) is not a member of the faculty of any medical school and has no pecuniary interest, directly or indirectly, in any college of medicine or in any institution where any branch of medicine is taught, at the time of his appointment: Provided, That of the six members to be appointed, not more than two shall be graduates of the same institution and not more than three shall be government physicians.Section 15. Tenure of office and compensation of members. The members of the Board of Medical Examiners shall hold office for one year: Provided, That any member may be reappointed for not more than one year. Each member shall receive as compensation ten pesos for each candidate examined for registration as physician, and five pesos for each candidate examined in the preliminary or final physician examination.The President of the Philippines, upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Civil Service , after due investigation, may remove any member of the Board of Medical Examiners for neglect of duty, incompetency, or unprofessional or dishonorable conduct. Section 16. Executive Officer and Secretary of the Board. The Secretary of the Boards of Examiners appointed in accordance with section ten of Act Numbered Four thousand seven, as amended, shall also be the secretary of the Board of Medical Examiners, who shall keep all the records, including examination papers, and the minutes of the deliberations of the Board. He shall also keep a register of all persons to whom certificates of registration has been granted; set forth the name, sec, age, and place of birth of each, place of business, post office address, the name of the medical college or university from which he graduated or in which he had studied, together with time spent in the study of the profession elsewhere, the name of the country where the institution is located which had granted to him the degree or certificate of attendance upon clinic and all lectures in medicine and surgery, and all other degrees granted to him from institutions of learning. He shall keep an up-to-date registration book of all duly registered physicians in the Philippines. He shall furnish copies of all examination questions and ratings in each subject of the respective candidates in the physicians examination, one month after the release of the list of successful examinees, to the deans of the different colleges of medicine exclusively for the information and guidance of the faculties thereof. This report shall be considered as restricted information. Any school which violates this rule shall be deprived of such privilege. The secretary of the Board shall likewise keep a record of all registered medical students. He shall keep all the records and proceedings, and issue and receive all papers in connection with any and all complaints presented to the Board.Section 17. Rules and regulations. The Board of Medical Examiners, with the approval of the Commissioner of Civil Service, shall promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the proper conduct of the examinations, correction of examination papers, and registration of physicians. The Commissioner shall supervise each Board examination and enforce the said rules and regulations. These rules and regulations shall take effect fifteen days after the date of their publication in the Official Gazette and shall not be changed within sixty days immediately before any examination. Such rules and regulations shall be printed and distributed for the information and guidance of all concerned. Section 18. Dates of examinations. The Board of Medical Examiners shall give examinations for the registration of physicians, one in May and one in November every year, in the City of Manila or any of its suburbs after giving not less than ten days' notice to each candidate who had filed his name and address with the secretary of the Board.Section 19. Fees. The secretary of the Board, under the supervision of the Commissioner of Civil Service, shall collect from each candidate the following fees:For registration as medical studentP 5.00

For complete physician examination75.00

For preliminary or final examination40.00

For registration as physician20.00

All fees paid as provided herein shall accrue to the funds of the Board of Medical Examiners and be expended for the payment of the compensation of the members thereof. No fees other than those provided herein shall be paid to the Board.Section 20. Issuance of Certificate of Registration, grounds for refusal of same. The Commissioner of Civil Service and the secretary of the Board of Medical Examiners shall sign jointly and issue certificates of registration to those who have satisfactorily complied with the requirements of the Board. They shall not issue a certificate of registration to any candidate who has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction of any criminal offense involving moral turpitude, or has been found guilty of immoral or dishonorable conduct after he due investigation by the Board of Medical Examiners, or has been declared to be of unsound mind.Section 21. Scope of examination. The examination for the registration of physicians shall consist of the following subjects: (1) Anatomy and Histology, (2) Physiology, (3) Biochemistry, (4) Microbiology and Parasitology, (5) Pharcology and Therapeutics, (6) Pathology, (7) Medicine, (8) Obstetrics and Gynecology, (9) Pediatrics and Nutrition, (10) Surgery and Opthalmology, Otolaryngology and Rhinology, (11) Preventive Medicine and Public Health, and (12) Legal Medicine, Ethics and Medical Jurisprudence: Provided, however, That the examination questions in each subject or group of subject shall at least be ten in number: Provided, further, That the examination questions in Medicine shall include at least three from the following branches: Infectious diseases, Neurology, Dermatology, Allergy, Endocrinology and Cardio-Vascular diseases: Provided, finally, That the examination questions in Surgery shall include at least four questions from the following: Opthalmology, Otology, Rhinology, Laryngology, Orthopedic Surgery and Anesthesiology.The questions shall be the same for all applicants. All answers must be written either in English or Spanish. No name of the examinee shall appear in the examination paper but the examiners shall devise a system whereby each applicant can be identified by number only.In order that a candidate may be deemed to have passed his examination successfully he must have obtained a general average of seventy-five per cent without a grade lower than sixty-five per cent in Medicine, Pediatrics and Nutrition, Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Preventive Medicine and Public Health, and no grade lower than fifty per cent in the rest of the subjects.The preliminary examinations shall comprise of the following subjects:(1) Gross Anatomy and Histology (2) Physiology(3) Biochemistry(4) Microbiology and ParasitologySection 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 examination; (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 for the performance of its duties in harmony with the provisions of this Act and necessary for the proper practice of medicine in the Philippines.Administrative investigations may be conducted by not less than four members of the Board of Medical Examiners; otherwise the proceedings shall be considered void. The existing rules of evidence shall be observed during all administrative investigations. The Board may disapprove applications for examination or registration, reprimand erring physicians, or suspend or revoke registration certificates, if the respondents are found guilty after due investigations.Section 23. Procedure and rules. Within five days after the filling of written charges under oath, the respondent physician shall be furnished a copy thereof, without requiring him or her to answer the same, and the Board shall conduct the investigation within five days after the receipt of such copy by the respondent. The investigation shall be completed as soon as practicable.Section 24. Grounds for reprimand, suspension or revocation of registration certificate. Any of the following shall be sufficient ground for reprimanding a physician, or for suspending or revoking a certificate of registration as physician:(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.Section 25. Rights of respondents. The respondent physician shall be entitled to be represented by counsel or be heard by himself or herself, to have a speedy and public hearing, to confront and to cross-examine witnesses against him or her, and to all other rights guaranteed by the Constitution and provided for in the Rules of Court.Section 26. Appeal from judgment. The decision of the Board of Medical Examiners shall automatically become final thirty days after the date of its promulgation unless the respondent, during the same period, has appealed to the Commissioner of Civil Service and later to the Office of the President of the Philippines. If the final decision is not satisfactory, the respondent may ask for a review of the case, or may file in court a petition for certiorari.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.ARTICLE IVPENAL AND OTHER PROVISIONSSection 28. Penalties. Any person found guilty of "illegal practice of medicine" shall be punished by a fine of not less than one thousand pesos nor more than ten thousand pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, or by imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.Section 29. Injunctions. The Board of Medical Examiners may file an action to enjoin any person illegally practicing medicine from the performance of any act constituting practice of medicine if the case so warrants until the necessary certificate therefore is secured. Any such person who, after having been so enjoined, continues in the illegal practice of medicine shall be punished for contempt of court. The said injunction shall not relieve the person practicing medicine without certificate of registration from criminal prosecution and punishment as provided in the preceding section.Section 30. Appropriation. To carry out the provisions of this Act, there is hereby appropriated, out of any funds in the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of twenty thousand pesos.Section 31. Repealing clause. All Acts, executive orders, administrative orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are repealed or modified accordingly.Section 32. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect upon its approval: Provided, That if it is approved during the time when examinations for physicians are held, it shall take effect immediately after the said examinations: Provided, further, That section six of this Act shall take effect at the beginning of the academic year nineteen hundred sixty to nineteen hundred sixty-one, and the first paragraph of section seven shall take effect four years thereafter.Approved: June 20, 1959PRC vs. DeGuzman

Facts: The respondents are all graduates of the Fatima College of Medicine, Valenzuela City, Metro Manila. They passed the Physician Licensure Examination conducted in February 1993 by the Board of Medicine (Board). Petitioner Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) then released their names as successful examinees in the medical licensure examination. Shortly thereafter, the Board observed that the grades of the seventy-nine successful examinees from Fatima College in the two most difficult subjects in the medical licensure exam, Biochemistry (Bio-Chem) and Obstetrics and Gynecology (OB-Gyne), were unusually and exceptionally high. Eleven Fatima examinees scored 100% in Bio-Chem and ten got 100% in OB-Gyne, another eleven got 99% in Bio-Chem, and twenty-one scored 99% in OB-Gyne.For its part, the NBI found that the questionable passing rate of Fatima examinees in the [1993] Physician Examination leads to the conclusion that the Fatima examinees gained early access to the test questions.Issue: Was the act pursuant to R.A. 2382 a valid exercise of police powerRuling: Yes, it is true that this Court has upheld the constitutional right of every citizen to select a profession or course of study subject to a fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements. But like all rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter, their exercise may be so regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and general welfare of the people. Thus, persons who desire to engage in the learned professions requiring scientific or technical knowledge may be required to take an examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers.

[G.R. No. 144681. June 21, 2004]PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION (PRC), CHAIRMAN HERMOGENES P. POBRE, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER ARMANDO PASCUAL, BOARD OF MEDICINE, CHAIRMAN RODOLFO P. DE GUZMAN, JOSE S. RAMIREZ, JUANITO B. BILLOTE, RUBEN R. POLICARPIO, EDGARDO T. FERNANDO and RICARDO D. FULGENCIO II, petitioners, vs. ARLENE V. DE GUZMAN, VIOLETA V. MENESES, CELERINA S. NAVARRO, JOSE RAMONCITO P. NAVARRO, ARNEL V. HERRERA and GERALDINE ELIZABETH M. PAGILAGAN, ELNORA R. RAQUENO, MARISSA A. REGODON, LAURA M. SANTOS, KARANGALAN D. SERRANO, DANILO A. VILLAVER, MARIA ROSARIO L. LEONOR, ALICIA S. LIZANO, MARITEL M. ECHIVERRI, BERNADETTE T. MENDOZA, FERNANDO F. MANDAPAT, ALELI A. GOLLAYAN, ELCIN C. ARRIOLA, HERMINIGILDA E. CONEJOS, SALLY B. BUNAGAN, ROGELIO B. ANCHETA, OSCAR H. PADUA, JR., EVELYN D. GRAJO, EVELYN S. ACOSTA, MARGARITA BELINDA L. VICENCIO, VALENTINO P. ARBOLEDA, EVELYN O. RAMOS, ACHILLES J. PERALTA, CORAZON M. CRUZ, LEUVINA P. CHICO, JOSEPH A. JAO, MA. LUISA S. GUTIERREZ, LYDIA C. CHAN, OPHELIA C. HIDALGO, FERNANDO T. CRUZ, MELVIN M. USITA, RAFAEL I. TOLENTINO, GRACE E. UY, CHERYL R. TRIGUERO, MICHAEL L. SERRANO, FEDERICO L. CASTILLO, MELITA J. CAEDO, SAMUEL B. BANGOY, BERNARDITA B. SY, GLORIA T. JULARBAL, FREDERICK D. FRANCISCO, CARLOS M. BERNARDO, JR., HUBERT S. NAZARENO, CLARISSA B. BACLIG, DAYMINDA G. BONTUYAN, BERNADETTE H. CABUHAT, NANCY J. CHAVEZ, MARIO D. CUARESMA, ERNESTO L. CUE, EVELYN C. CUNDANGAN, RHONEIL R. DEVERATURDA, DERILEEN D. DORADO, SAIBZUR N. EDDING, VIOLETA C. FELIPE, HERMINIO V. FERNANDEZ, JR., MARIA VICTORIA M. LACSAMANA, NORMA G. LAFAVILLA, RUBY B. LANTIN, MA. ELOISA Q. MALLARI, CLARISA SJ. NICOLAS, PERCIVAL H. PANGILINAN, ARNULFO A. SALVADOR, ROBERT B. SANCHEZ, MERLY D. STA. ANA and YOLANDA P. UNICA, respondents.D E C I S I O NTINGA, J.:This petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure seeks to nullify the Decision,[footnoteRef:1][1] dated May 16, 2000, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283. The appellate court affirmed the judgment[footnoteRef:2][2] dated December 19, 1994, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 52, in Civil Case No. 93-66530. The trial court allowed the respondents to take their physicians oath and to register as duly licensed physicians. Equally challenged is the Resolution[footnoteRef:3][3] promulgated on August 25, 2000 of the Court of Appeals, denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. [1: ] [2: ] [3: ]

The facts of this case are as follows:The respondents are all graduates of the Fatima College of Medicine, Valenzuela City, Metro Manila. They passed the Physician Licensure Examination conducted in February 1993 by the Board of Medicine (Board). Petitioner Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) then released their names as successful examinees in the medical licensure examination.Shortly thereafter, the Board observed that the grades of the seventy-nine successful examinees from Fatima College in the two most difficult subjects in the medical licensure exam, Biochemistry (Bio-Chem) and Obstetrics and Gynecology (OB-Gyne), were unusually and exceptionally high. Eleven Fatima examinees scored 100% in Bio-Chem and ten got 100% in OB-Gyne, another eleven got 99% in Bio-Chem, and twenty-one scored 99% in OB-Gyne. The Board also observed that many of those who passed from Fatima got marks of 95% or better in both subjects, and no one got a mark lower than 90%. A comparison of the performances of the candidates from other schools was made. The Board observed that strangely, 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.On June 7, 1993, the Board issued Resolution No. 19, withholding the registration as physicians of all the examinees from the Fatima College of Medicine.[footnoteRef:4][4] The PRC asked the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to investigate whether any anomaly or irregularity marred the February 1993 Physician Licensure Examination. [4: ]

Prior to the NBI investigation, the Board requested Fr. Bienvenido F. Nebres, S.J., an expert mathematician and authority in statistics, and later president of the Ateneo de Manila University, to conduct a statistical analysis of the results in Bio-Chem and Ob-Gyne of the said examination.On June 10, 1993, Fr. Nebres submitted his report. He reported that a comparison of the scores in Bio-Chem and Ob-Gyne, of the Fatima College examinees with those of examinees from De La Salle University and Perpetual Help College of Medicine showed that the scores of Fatima College examinees were not only incredibly high but unusually clustered close to each other. He concluded that there must be some unusual reason creating the clustering of scores in the two subjects. It must be a cause strong enough to eliminate the normal variations that one should expect from the examinees [of Fatima College] in terms of talent, effort, energy, etc.[footnoteRef:5][5] [5: ]

For its part, the NBI found that the questionable passing rate of Fatima examinees in the [1993] Physician Examination leads to the conclusion that the Fatima examinees gained early access to the test questions.[footnoteRef:6][6] [6: ]

On July 5, 1993, respondents Arlene V. De Guzman, Violeta V. Meneses, Celerina S. Navarro, Jose Ramoncito P. Navarro, Arnel V. Herrera, and Geraldine Elizabeth M. Pagilagan (Arlene V. De Guzman et al., for brevity) filed a special civil action for mandamus, with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction docketed as Civil Case No. 93-66530 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 52. Their petition was adopted by the other respondents as intervenors.Meanwhile, the Board issued Resolution No. 26, dated July 21, 1993, charging 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. The case was docketed as Adm. Case No. 1687 by the PRC. On July 28, 1993, the RTC issued an Order in Civil Case No. 93-66530 granting the preliminary mandatory injunction sought by the respondents. It ordered the petitioners to administer the physicians oath to Arlene V. De Guzman et al., and enter their names in the rolls of the PRC.The petitioners then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to set aside the mandatory injunctive writ, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 31701. On October 21, 1993, the appellate court decided CA-G.R. SP No. 31701, with the dispositive portion of the Decision ordaining as follows:WHEREFORE, this petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issued by the lower court against petitioners is hereby nullified and set aside.SO ORDERED.[footnoteRef:7][7] [7: ]

Arlene V. de Guzman, et al., then elevated the foregoing Decision to this Court in G.R. No. 112315. In our Resolution dated May 23, 1994, we denied the petition for failure to show reversible error on the part of the appellate court.Meanwhile, on November 22, 1993, during the pendency of the instant petition, the pre-trial conference in Civil Case No. 93-66530 was held. Then, the parties, agreed to reduce the testimonies of their respective witnesses to sworn questions-and-answers. This was without prejudice to cross-examination by the opposing counsel.On December 13, 1993, petitioners counsel failed to appear at the trial in the mistaken belief that the trial was set for December 15. The trial court then ruled that petitioners waived their right to cross-examine the witnesses.On January 27, 1994, 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. The trial court denied the motion for lack of notice to adverse counsel. It also denied the Motion for Reconsideration that followed on the ground that adverse counsel was notified less than three (3) days prior to the hearing.Meanwhile, to prevent the PRC and the Board from proceeding with Adm. Case No. 1687, the respondents herein moved for the issuance of a restraining order, which the lower court granted in its Order dated April 4, 1994.The petitioners then filed with this Court a petition for certiorari docketed as G.R. No. 115704, to annul the Orders of the trial court dated November 13, 1993, February 28, 1994, and April 4, 1994. We referred the petition to the Court of Appeals where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 34506.On August 31, 1994, the appellate court decided CA-G.R. SP No. 34506 as follows:WHEREFORE, the present petition for certiorari with prayer for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction is GRANTED and the Orders of December 13, 1993, February 7, 1994, February 28, 1994, and April 4, 1994 of the RTC-Manila, Branch 52, and all further proceedings taken by it in Special Civil Action No. 93-66530 are hereby DECLARED NULL and VOID. The said RTC-Manila 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. Costs against respondents.IT IS SO ORDERED.[footnoteRef:8][8] [8: ]

The trial was then set and notices were sent to the parties.A day before the first hearing, on September 22, 1994, the petitioners filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion praying for the partial reconsideration of the appellate courts decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 34506, and for the outright dismissal of Civil Case No. 93-66530. The petitioners asked for the suspension of the proceedings.In its Order dated September 23, 1994, the trial court granted the aforesaid motion, cancelled the scheduled hearing dates, and reset the proceedings to October 21 and 28, 1994. Meanwhile, on October 25, 1994, the Court of Appeals denied the partial motion for reconsideration in CA-G.R. SP No. 34506. Thus, petitioners filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review docketed as G.R. No. 117817, entitled Professional Regulation Commission, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.On November 11, 1994, counsel for the petitioners failed to appear at the trial of Civil Case No. 93-66530. Upon motion of the respondents herein, the trial court ruled that herein petitioners waived their right to cross-examine the herein respondents. Trial was reset to November 28, 1994.On November 25, 1994, petitioners counsel moved for the inhibition of the trial court judge for alleged partiality. On November 28, 1994, the day the Motion to Inhibit was to be heard, petitioners failed to appear. Thus, the trial court denied the Motion to Inhibit and declared Civil Case No. 93-66530 deemed submitted for decision. On December 19, 1994, the trial court handed down its judgment in Civil Case No. 93-66530, the fallo of which reads:WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered ordering the respondents to allow the petitioners and intervenors (except those with asterisks and footnotes in pages 1 & 2 of this decision) [sic],[footnoteRef:9][9] to take the physicians oath and to register them as physicians. [9: ]

It should be made clear that this decision is without prejudice 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 requirements of the Constitution as any other professionals.No costs.SO ORDERED.[footnoteRef:10][10] [10: ]

As a result of these developments, petitioners filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari docketed as G.R. No. 118437, entitled Professional Regulation Commission v. Hon. David G. Nitafan, praying inter alia, that (1) G.R. No. 118437 be consolidated with G.R. No. 117817; (2) the decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 31, 1994 in CA-G.R. SP No. 34506 be nullified for its failure to decree the dismissal of Civil Case No. 93-66530, and in the alternative, to set aside the decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. 93-66530, order the trial court judge to inhibit himself, and Civil Case No. 93-66530 be re-raffled to another branch.On December 26, 1994, the petitioners herein filed their Notice of Appeal[footnoteRef:11][11] in Civil Case No. 93-66530, thereby elevating the case to the Court of Appeals, where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 37283. [11: ]

In our Resolution of June 7, 1995, G.R. No. 118437 was consolidated with G.R. No. 117817.On July 9, 1998, we disposed of G.R. Nos. 117817 and 118437 in this wise:WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 117817 is DISMISSED for being moot. The petition in G.R. No. 118437 is likewise DISMISSED on the ground that there is a pending appeal before the Court of Appeals. Assistant Solicitor General Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang 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.SO ORDERED.[footnoteRef:12][12] [12: ]

While CA-G.R. SP No. 37283 was awaiting disposition by the appellate court, Arnel V. Herrera, one of the original petitioners in Civil Case No. 93-66530, joined by twenty-seven intervenors, to wit: Fernando F. Mandapat, Ophelia C. Hidalgo, Bernadette T. Mendoza, Ruby B. Lantin-Tan, Fernando T. Cruz, Marissa A. Regodon, Ma. Eloisa Q. Mallari-Largoza, Cheryl R. Triguero, Joseph A. Jao, Bernadette H. Cabuhat, Evelyn S. Acosta-Cabanes, Laura M. Santos, Maritel M. Echiverri, Bernadette C. Escusa, Carlosito C. Domingo, Alicia S. Lizano, Elnora R. Raqueno-Rabaino, Saibzur N. Edding, Derileen D. Dorado-Edding, Robert B. Sanchez, Maria Rosario L. Leonor-Lacandula, Geraldine Elizabeth M. Pagilagan-Palma, Margarita Belinda L. Vicencio-Gamilla, Herminigilda E. Conejos, Leuvina P. Chico-Paguio, Elcin C. Arriola-Ocampo, and Jose Ramoncito P. Navarro, 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 Mary Jean I. Yeban-Merlan, Michael L. Serrano, Norma G. Lafavilla, Arnulfo A. Salvador, Belinda C. Rabara, Yolanda P. Unica, Dayminda G. Bontuyan, Clarissa B. Baclig, Ma. Luisa S. Gutierrez, Rhoneil R. Deveraturda, Aleli A. Gollayan, Evelyn C. Cundangan, Frederick D. Francisco, Violeta V. Meneses, Melita J. Caedo, Clarisa SJ. Nicolas, Federico L. Castillo, Karangalan D. Serrano, Danilo A. Villaver, Grace E. Uy, Lydia C. Chan, and Melvin M. Usita. The Court of Appeals ruled that its decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283 would not apply to them.On May 16, 2000, the Court of Appeals decided CA-G.R. SP No. 37283, with the following fallo, to wit:WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, We hereby AFFIRM the same and DISMISS the instant appeal.No pronouncement as to costs.SO ORDERED.[footnoteRef:13][13] [13: ]

In sustaining the trial courts decision, the appellate court ratiocinated that the respondents complied with all the statutory requirements for admission into the licensure examination for physicians in February 1993. They all passed the said examination. Having fulfilled the requirements of Republic Act No. 2382,[footnoteRef:14][14] they should be allowed to take their oaths as physicians and be registered in the rolls of the PRC. [14: ]

Hence, this petition raising the following issues:IWHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS HAVE A VALID CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MANDAMUS AGAINST PETITIONERS IN THE LIGHT OF THE RESOLUTION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT IN G.R. NO. 112315 AFFIRMING THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DECLARING THAT IF EVER THERE IS SOME DOUBT AS TO THE MORAL FITNESS OF EXAMINEES, THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSE TO PRACTICE MEDICINE IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY GRANTED TO THE SUCCESSFUL EXAMINEES.IIWHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION FOR MANDAMUS COULD PROCEED DESPITE THE PENDENCY OF ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. 1687, WHICH WAS PRECISELY LODGED TO DETERMINE THE MORAL FITNESS OF RESPONDENTS TO BECOME DOCTORS.[footnoteRef:15][15] [15: ]

To our mind, the only issue is: Did the Court of Appeals commit a reversible error of law in sustaining the judgment of the trial court that respondents are entitled to a writ of mandamus?The petitioners submit that a writ of mandamus will not lie in this case. They 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 required. Thus, mandamus may be availed of only when the duty sought to be performed is a ministerial and not a discretionary one. The petitioners argue that the appellate courts decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283 upholding the decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. 93-66530 overlooked its own pronouncement in CA-G.R. SP No. 31701. The Court of Appeals held in CA-G.R. SP No. 31701 that the issuance of a license to engage in the practice of medicine becomes discretionary on the PRC if there exists some doubt that the successful examinee has not fully met the requirements of the law. The petitioners stress that this Courts Resolution dated May 24, 1994 in G.R. No. 112315 held that there was no showing that the Court of Appeals had committed any reversible error in rendering the questioned judgment in CA-G.R. SP No. 31701. The petitioners point out that our Resolution in G.R. No. 112315 has long become final and executory.Respondents counter that having passed the 1993 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 Section 20[footnoteRef:16][16] of Rep. Act No. 2382. The Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283, found that respondents complied with all the requirements of Rep. Act No. 2382. Furthermore, respondents were admitted by the Medical Board to the licensure examinations and had passed the same. Hence, pursuant to Section 20 of Rep. Act No. 2382, the petitioners had the obligation to administer their oaths as physicians and register them. [16: ]

Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state or the sovereign, directed to some inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or person requiring 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 operation of law.[footnoteRef:17][17] Section 3 of Rule 65[footnoteRef:18][18] of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure outlines two situations when a writ of mandamus may issue, when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully (1) neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station; or (2) excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the other is entitled. [17: ] [18: ]

We shall discuss the issues successively.1.On The Existence of a Duty of the Board of Medicine To Issue Certificates of Registration as Physicians under Rep. Act No. 2382.For mandamus to prosper, there must be a showing that the officer, board, or official concerned, has a clear legal duty, not involving discretion.[footnoteRef:19][19] Moreover, there must be statutory authority for the performance of the act,[footnoteRef:20][20] and the performance of the duty has been refused.[footnoteRef:21][21] Thus, it must be pertinently asked now: Did petitioners have the duty to administer the Hippocratic Oath and register respondents as physicians under the Medical Act of 1959? [19: ] [20: ] [21: ]

As found by the Court of Appeals, on which we agree on the basis of the records:It bears emphasizing herein that petitioner-appellees and intervenor-appellees have fully complied with all the statutory requirements for admission into the licensure examinations for physicians conducted and administered by the respondent-appellants on February 12, 14, 20 and 21, 1993. Stress, too, must be made of the fact that all of them successfully passed the same examinations.[footnoteRef:22][22] [22: ]

The crucial query now is whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that petitioners should allow the respondents to take their oaths as physicians and register them, steps which would enable respondents to practice the medical profession[footnoteRef:23][23] pursuant to Section 20 of the Medical Act of 1959? [23: ]

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. But it is a basic 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.[footnoteRef:24][24] The 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, Section 20 of Rep. Act No. 2382, as amended should be read in conjunction with the other provisions of the Act. Thus, to determine whether the petitioners had the ministerial obligation to administer the Hippocratic Oath to respondents and register them as physicians, recourse must be had to the entirety of the Medical Act of 1959. [24: ]

A careful reading of Section 20 of the Medical Act of 1959 discloses that the law uses the word shall with respect to the issuance of certificates of registration. Thus, the petitioners shall sign and issue certificates of registration to those who have satisfactorily complied with the requirements of the Board. In statutory construction the term shall is a word of command. It is given imperative meaning. Thus, when an examinee satisfies the requirements for the grant of his physicians license, the Board is obliged to administer to him his oath and register him as a physician, pursuant to Section 20 and par. (1) of Section 22[footnoteRef:25][25] of the Medical Act of 1959. [25: ]

However, the surrounding circumstances in this case call for serious inquiry concerning the satisfactory compliance with the Board requirements by the respondents. The unusually high scores in the two most difficult subjects was phenomenal, according to Fr. Nebres, the consultant of PRC on the matter, and raised grave doubts about the integrity, if not validity, of the tests. These doubts have to be appropriately resolved.Under the second paragraph of Section 22, the Board is vested with the power to conduct administrative investigations and disapprove applications for examination or registration, pursuant to the objectives of Rep. Act No. 2382 as outlined in Section 1[footnoteRef:26][26] thereof. In this case, after the investigation, the Board filed before the PRC, Adm. Case No. 1687 against the respondents to ascertain their moral and mental fitness to practice medicine, as required by Section 9[footnoteRef:27][27] of Rep. Act No. 2382. In its Decision dated July 1, 1997, the Board ruled: [26: ] [27: ]

WHEREFORE, the BOARD hereby CANCELS the respondents[] examination papers in the Physician Licensure Examinations given in February 1993 and further DEBARS them from taking any licensure examination for a period of ONE (1) YEAR from the date of the promulgation of this DECISION. They may, if they so desire, apply for the scheduled examinations for physicians after the lapse of the period imposed by the BOARD.SO ORDERED.[footnoteRef:28][28] [28: ]

Until the moral and mental fitness of the respondents could be ascertained, according to petitioners, the Board has discretion to hold in abeyance the administration of the Hippocratic Oath and the issuance of the certificates to them. The writ of mandamus does not lie to compel performance of an act which is not duly authorized.The respondents nevertheless argue that under Section 20, the Board shall not issue a certificate of registration only in the following instances: (1) to any candidate who has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction of any criminal offense involving moral turpitude; (2) or has been found guilty of immoral or dishonorable conduct after the investigation by the Board; or (3) has been declared to be of unsound mind. They aver that none of these circumstances are present in their case.Petitioners reject respondents argument. We are informed that in Board Resolution No. 26,[footnoteRef:29][29] dated July 21, 1993, the Board resolved to file charges against the examinees from Fatima College of Medicine for immorality, dishonesty, fraud, and deceit in the Obstetrics-Gynecology and Biochemistry examinations. It likewise sought to cancel the examination results obtained by the examinees from the Fatima College. [29: ]

Section 8[footnoteRef:30][30] of Rep. Act No. 2382 prescribes, among others, that a person who aspires to practice medicine in the Philippines, must have satisfactorily passed the corresponding Board Examination. Section 22, in turn, provides that the oath may only be administered to physicians who qualified in the examinations. The operative word here is satisfactorily, defined as sufficient to meet a condition or obligation or capable of dispelling doubt or ignorance.[footnoteRef:31][31] Gleaned from Board Resolution No. 26, the licensing authority apparently did not find that the respondents satisfactorily passed the licensure examinations. The Board instead sought to nullify the examination results obtained by the respondents. [30: ] [31: ]

2.On the Right Of The Respondents To Be Registered As PhysiciansThe function of mandamus is not to establish a right but to enforce one that has been established by law. If 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.[footnoteRef:32][32] There must be a well-defined, clear and certain legal right to the thing demanded.[footnoteRef:33][33] It is long established rule that a license to practice medicine is a privilege or franchise granted by the government.[footnoteRef:34][34] [32: ] [33: ] [34: ]

It is true that this Court has upheld the constitutional right[footnoteRef:35][35] of every citizen to select a profession or course of study subject to a fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements.[footnoteRef:36][36] But like all rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter, their exercise may be so regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and general welfare of the people.[footnoteRef:37][37] Thus, persons who desire to engage in the learned professions requiring scientific or technical knowledge may be required to take an examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers. This regulation takes particular pertinence in the field of medicine, to protect the public from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance among those who would practice medicine. In a previous case, it may be recalled, this Court has ordered the Board of Medical Examiners to annul both its resolution and certificate authorizing a Spanish subject, with the degree of Licentiate in Medicine and Surgery from the University of Barcelona, Spain, to practice medicine in the Philippines, without first passing the examination required by the Philippine Medical Act.[footnoteRef:38][38] In another case worth noting, we upheld the power of the State to upgrade the selection of applicants into medical schools through admission tests.[footnoteRef:39][39] [35: ] [36: ] [37: ] [38: ] [39: ]

It must be stressed, nevertheless, that the power to regulate the exercise of a profession or pursuit of an occupation cannot be exercised by the State 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. Such conditions may not, however, require giving up ones constitutional rights as a condition to acquiring the license.[footnoteRef:40][40] Under 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.[footnoteRef:41][41] [40: ] [41: ]

In the present case, the aforementioned guidelines are provided for in Rep. Act No. 2382, as amended, which prescribes the requirements for admission to the practice of medicine, the qualifications of candidates for the board examinations, the scope and conduct of the examinations, the grounds for denying the issuance of a physicians license, or revoking a license that has been issued. Verily, to be granted the privilege to practice medicine, the applicant must show that he possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications. Furthermore, it must appear that he has fully complied with all the conditions and requirements imposed by the law and the licensing authority. Should doubt taint or mar the compliance as being less than satisfactory, then the privilege will not issue. For said privilege is distinguishable from a matter of right, which may be demanded if denied. Thus, without a definite showing that the aforesaid requirements and conditions have been satisfactorily met, the courts may not grant the writ of mandamus to secure said privilege without thwarting the legislative will.3.On the Ripeness of the Petition for MandamusLastly, the petitioners herein contend that the Court of Appeals should have dismissed the petition for mandamus below for being premature. They argue that the administrative remedies had not been exhausted. The records show that this is not the first time that petitioners have sought the dismissal of Civil Case No. 93-66530. This issue was raised in G.R. No. 115704, which petition we referred to the Court of Appeals, where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 34506. On motion for reconsideration in CA-G.R. SP No. 34506, 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 Civil Case No. 93-66530 were inconsistent reliefs. In G.R. No. 118437, the petitioners sought to nullify the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 34506 insofar as it did not order the dismissal of Civil Case No. 93-66530. In our consolidated decision, dated July 9, 1998, in G.R. Nos. 117817 & 118437, this Court speaking through Justice Bellosillo opined that:Indeed, the issue as to whether the Court of Appeals erred in not ordering the dismissal of Civil Case No. 93-66530 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 denial thereof should follow as a logical consequence.[footnoteRef:42][42] There is no longer any justiciable controversy so that any declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.[footnoteRef:43][43] It should be recalled that in its decision of 19 December 1994 the trial court granted the writ of mandamus prayed for by private respondents, which decision was received by petitioners on 20 December 1994. Three (3) days after, or on 23 December 1994, petitioners filed the instant petition. By then, the remedy available to them was to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals, which they in fact did, by filing a notice of appeal on 26 December 1994.[footnoteRef:44][44] [42: ] [43: ] [44: ]

The petitioners have shown no cogent reason for us to reverse the aforecited ruling. Nor will their reliance upon the doctrine of the exhaustion of administrative remedies in the instant case advance their cause any.Section 26[footnoteRef:45][45] of the Medical Act of 1959 provides for the administrative and judicial remedies that respondents herein can avail to question Resolution No. 26 of the Board of Medicine, namely: (a) appeal the unfavorable judgment to the PRC; (b) should the PRC ruling still be unfavorable, to elevate the matter on appeal to the Office of the President; and (c) should they still be unsatisfied, to ask for a review of the case or to bring the case to court via a special civil action of certiorari. Thus, as a rule, mandamus will not lie when administrative remedies are still available.[footnoteRef:46][46] However, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply where, as in this case, a pure question of law is raised.[footnoteRef:47][47] On this issue, no reversible error may, thus, be laid at the door of the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283, when it refused to dismiss Civil Case No. 93-66530. [45: ] [46: ] [47: ]

As we earlier pointed out, herein respondents Arnel V. Herrera, Fernando F. Mandapat, Ophelia C. Hidalgo, Bernadette T. Mendoza, Ruby B. Lantin-Tan, Fernando T. Cruz, Marissa A. Regodon, Ma. Eloisa Q. Mallari-Largoza, Cheryl R. Triguero, Joseph A. Jao, Bernadette H. Cabuhat, Evelyn S. Acosta-Cabanes, Laura M. Santos, Maritel M. Echiverri, Bernadette C. Escusa, Carlosito C. Domingo, Alicia S. Lizano, Elnora R. Raqueno-Rabaino, Saibzur N. Edding, Derileen D. Dorado-Edding, Robert B. Sanchez, Maria Rosario Leonor-Lacandula, Geraldine Elizabeth M. Pagilagan-Palma, Margarita Belinda L. Vicencio-Gamilla, Herminigilda E. Conejos, Leuvina P. Chico-Paguio, Elcin C. Arriola-Ocampo, and Jose Ramoncito P. Navarro manifested to the Court of Appeals during the pendency of CA-G.R. SP No. 37283, 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 Mary Jean I. Yeban-Merlan, Michael L. Serrano, Norma G. Lafavilla, Arnulfo A. Salvador, Belinda C. Rabarra, Yolanda P. Unica, Dayminda G. Bontuyan, Clarissa B. Baclig, Ma. Luisa S. Gutierrez, Rhoneil R. Deveraturda, Aleli A. Gollayan, Evelyn C. Cundangan, Frederick D. Francisco, Violeta V. Meneses, Melita J. Caedo, Clarisa SJ. Nicolas, Federico L. Castillo, Karangalan D. Serrano, Danilo A. Villaver, Grace E. Uy, Lydia C. Chan, and Melvin M. Usita. Following these manifestations and motions, the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283 decreed that its ruling would not apply to them. Thus, inasmuch as the instant case is a petition for review of the appellate courts ruling in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283, a decision which is inapplicable to the aforementioned respondents will similarly not apply to them.As to Achilles J. Peralta, Evelyn O. Ramos, Sally B. Bunagan, Rogelio B. Ancheta, Oscar H. Padua, Jr., Evelyn D. Grajo, Valentino P. Arboleda, Carlos M. Bernardo, Jr., Mario D. Cuaresma, Violeta C. Felipe, Percival H. Pangilinan, Corazon M. Cruz and Samuel B. Bangoy, herein decision shall not apply pursuant to the Orders of the trial court in Civil Case No. 93-66530, dropping their names from the suit.Consequently, this Decision is binding only on the remaining respondents, namely: Arlene V. de Guzman, Celerina S. Navarro, Rafael I. Tolentino, Bernardita B. Sy, Gloria T. Jularbal, Hubert S. Nazareno, Nancy J. Chavez, Ernesto L. Cue, Herminio V. Fernandez, Jr., Maria Victoria M. Lacsamana and Merly D. Sta. Ana, as well as the petitioners.WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, (1) the assailed decision dated May 16, 2000, of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283, which affirmed the judgment dated December 19, 1994, of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 52, in Civil Case No. 93-66530, ordering petitioners to administer the physicians oath to herein respondents as well as the resolution dated August 25, 2000, of the appellate court, denying the petitioners motion for reconsideration, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE; and (2) the writ of mandamus, issued in Civil Case No. 93-66530, and affirmed by the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283 is NULLIFIED AND SET ASIDE.SO ORDERED.Puno, (Chairman), and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.Quisumbing, J., no part.Austria-Martinez, J., no part - on leave.

Rissa M. Mira - Case Digest DECS vs. San DiegoG.R. No. 89572 December 21, 1989

Facts: Respondent San Diego has flunked the NMAT (National Medical Admission Test) three times. When he applied to take again, petitioner rejected his application based on the three-flunk-rule. He then filed a petition before the RTC on the ground of due process and equal protection and challenging the constitutionality of the order. The petition was granted by the RTC therefore this petition.

Issue:Whether or not the NMAT three-flunk-rule order is valid and constitutional.

Ruling:Yes. It is the right and 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 right to quality education is not absolute. The Constitution provides that every citizen has the right to choose a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements. It is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality education as a guarantee of the Constitution but one must show that he is entitled to it because of his preparation and promise. Petition was granted and the RTC ruling was reversed.

G.R. No. 89572 December 21, 1989DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS (DECS) and DIRECTOR OF CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT, petitioners, vs.ROBERTO REY C. SAN DIEGO and JUDGE TERESITA DIZON-CAPULONG, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 172, respondents.Ramon M. Guevara for private respondent.CRUZ, J.:The issue before us is mediocrity. The question is whether a person who has thrice failed the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) is entitled to take it again.The petitioner contends he may not, under its rule that-h) 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.The private respondent insists he can, on constitutional grounds.But first the facts.The private respondent is a graduate of the University of the East with a degree of Bachelor of Science in Zoology. The petitioner claims that he took the NMAT three times and flunked it as many times. 1 When he applied to take it again, the petitioner rejected his application on the basis of the aforesaid rule. He then went to the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, to compel his admission to the test. In his original petition for mandamus, he first invoked his constitutional rights to academic freedom and quality education. By agreement of the parties, the private respondent was allowed to take the NMAT scheduled on April 16, 1989, subject to the outcome of his petition. 2 In an amended petition filed with leave of court, he squarely challenged the constitutionality of MECS Order No. 12, Series of 1972, containing the above-cited rule. The additional grounds raised were due process and equal protection. After hearing, the respondent judge rendered a decision on July 4, 1989, declaring the challenged order invalid and granting the petition. Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong held that the petitioner had been deprived of his right to pursue a medical education through an arbitrary exercise of the police power. 3We cannot sustain the respondent judge. Her decision must be reversed.In Tablarin v. Gutierrez, 4 this Court upheld the constitutionality of the NMAT as a measure intended to limit the admission to medical schools only to those who have initially proved their competence and preparation for a medical education. Justice Florentino P. Feliciano declared for a unanimous Court:Perhaps the only issue that needs some consideration is whether there is some reasonable relation between the prescribing of passing the NMAT as a condition for admission to medical school on the one hand, and the securing of the health and safety of the general community, on the other hand. This question is perhaps most usefully approached by recalling that the regulation of the pratice of medicine in all its branches has long been recognized as a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public. That the power to regulate and control the practice of medicine includes the power to regulate admission to the ranks of those authorized to practice medicine, is also well recognized. Thus, legislation and administrative regulations requiring those who wish to practice medicine first to take and pass medical board examinations have long ago been recognized as valid exercises of governmental power. Similarly, the establishment of minimum medical educational requirements-i.e., the completion of prescribed courses in a recognized medical school-for admission to the medical profession, has also been sustained as a legitimate exercise of the regulatory authority of the state. What we have before us in the instant case is closely related: the regulation of access to medical schools. MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985, as noted earlier, articulates the rationale of regulation of this type: the improvement of the professional and technical quality of the graduates of medical schools, by upgrading the quality of those admitted to the student body of the medical schools. That upgrading is sought by selectivity in the process of admission, selectivity consisting, among other things, of limiting admission to those who exhibit in the required degree the aptitude for medical studies and eventually for medical practice. The need to maintain, and the difficulties of maintaining, high standards in our professional schools in general, and medical schools in particular, in the current state of our social and economic development, are widely known. We believe that the government is entitled to prescribe an admission test like the NMAT as a means of achieving its stated objective of "upgrading the selection of applicants into [our] medical schools" and of "improv[ing] the quality of medical education in the country." Given the widespread use today of such admission tests in, for instance, medical schools in the United States of America (the Medical College Admission Test [MCAT] and quite probably, in other countries with far more developed educational resources than our own, and taking into account the failure or inability of the petitioners to even attempt to prove otherwise, we are entitled to hold that the NMAT is reasonably related to the securing of the ultimate end of legislation and regulation in this area. That end, it is useful to recall, is the protection of the public from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance in those who would undertake to treat our bodies and minds for disease or trauma.However, the respondent judge agreed with the petitioner that the said case was not applicable. Her reason was that it upheld only the requirement for the admission test and said nothing about the so-called "three-flunk rule." We see no reason why the rationale in the Tablarin case cannot apply to the case at bar. The issue raised in both cases is the academic preparation of the applicant. This may be gauged at least initially by the admission test and, indeed with more reliability, by the three-flunk rule. The latter cannot be regarded any less valid than the former in the regulation of the medical profession.There is no need to redefine here the police power of the State. Suffice it to repeat that the power is validly exercised if (a) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the interference of the State, and (b) the means employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. 5In other words, 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. This is true of any other calling in which the public interest is involved; and the closer the link, the longer the bridge to one's ambition. The State has the responsibility to harness its human resources and to see to it that they are not dissipated or, no less worse, not used at all. These resources must be applied in a manner that will best promote the common good while also giving the individual a sense of satisfaction. A person cannot insist on being a physician if he will be a menace to his patients. If one who wants to be a lawyer may prove better as a plumber, he should be so advised and adviced. Of course, he may not be forced to be a plumber, but on the other hand he may not force his entry into the bar. By the same token, a student who has demonstrated promise as a pianist cannot be shunted aside to take a course in nursing, however appropriate this career may be for others. The right to quality education invoked by the private respondent is not absolute. The Constitution also provides that "every citizen has the right to choose a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements. 6The private respondent must yield to the challenged rule and give way to those better prepared. Where even those who have qualified may still not be accommodated in our already crowded medical schools, there is all the more reason to bar those who, like him, have been tested and found wanting.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 Court feels that it is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality education as a guarantee of the Constitution: one must show that he is entitled to it because of his preparation and promise. The private respondent has failed the NMAT five times. 7 While his persistence is noteworthy, to say the least, it is certainly misplaced, like a hopeless love.No depreciation is intended or made against the private respondent. It is stressed that a person who does not qualify in the NMAT is not an absolute incompetent unfit for any work or occupation. The only inference is that he is a probably better, not for the medical profession, but for another calling that has not excited his interest. In the former, he may be a bungler or at least lackluster; in the latter, he is more likely to succeed and may even be outstanding. It is for the appropriate calling that he is entitled to quality education for the full harnessing of his potentials and the sharpening of his latent talents toward what may even be a brilliant future. We cannot have a society of square pegs in round holes, of dentists who should never have left the farm and engineers who should have studied banking and teachers who could be better as merchants.It is time indeed that the State took decisive steps to regulate and enrich our system of education by directing the student to the course for which he is best suited as determined by initial tests and evaluations. Otherwise, we may be "swamped with mediocrity," in the words of Justice Holmes, not because we are lacking in intelligence but because we are a nation of misfits. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the respondent court dated January 13, 1989, is REVERSED, with costs against the private respondent. It is so ordered.Fernan, C.J., Narvasa Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.

6LEGAL MEDICINEGELLIE VALLERIE T. LUMANTAS