You are on page 1of 2

180 SCRA 533; G.R. No.

89572; December 21, 1989] Constitutional Law| Police Power|


Bill of Rights|

DEPARTMENT 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.
FACTS:
Private respondent, San Diego, is a graduate of the University of the East with a degree
of B.S. in Zoology. The petitioner claims that he took the National Medical Admission
Test (NMAT) three times and flunked it as many times. When he applied to take it
again, the petitioner rejected his application on the basis of the NMAT rule:

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.
He then went to RTC Valenzuela to compel his admission to the test. In his petition, 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.

ISSUE:
Whether respondent was deprived of his right to a medical education through an
arbitrary exercise of the police power.

HELD:
The regulation of the practice of medicine in all its branches has long been recognized
as a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public. Thus,
legislation and administrative regulations requiring those who wish to practice medicine
first to take and pass medical board examinations is a valid exercises of governmental
power.

The Court agreed 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 medical schools” and of “improving the quality of medical education in
the country.”

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 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.
IN RE: VICTORIO LANUEVO(former Bar confidant)
RAMON GALANG (1971 Bar Examinee) flunked in 1969, 1966-76, 1962-64 Bar exam

FACTS:
Administrative proceeding against Victorio Lanuevo for disbarment.

1. Admitted having brought the five examination notebooks of Ramon E. Galang back to the
respective examiners for re-evalution or re-checking.
2. The five examiners admitted having re-evaluated or re-checked the notebook to him by the Bar
Confidant, stating that he has the authority to do the same and that the examinee concerned
failed only in his particular subject and was on the borderline of passing.
3. Ramon galang was able to pass the 1971 bar exam because of Lanuevo’s move but the exam
results bears that he failed in 5 subjects namely in (Political, Civil, Mercantile, Criminal &
Remedial).
4. Galang on the otherhand, denied of having charged of Slight Physical Injuries on Eufrosino de
Vera, a law student of MLQU.

RULING:
The court disbarred Lanuevo – has no authority to request the examiners to re-evaluate grades of
examinees w/o prior authority from Supreme Court.
He does not possess any discretion with respect to the matter of admission of examinees to the bar. He
does not a have any business evaluating the answers of the examinees.

Consequently, Galang was also disbarred Sec. 2 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Curt of 1964,
candidates for admission to the bar must be of good moral character. Galang has a pending criminal
cases of Physical Injuries, he committed perjury when he declared under oath that he had no pending
criminal case this resulted him to revoked his license.