Board of Optometry (petitioners) vs. Colet (respondents)
) respondents do not possess the requisite right as would entitle
G.R. No. 122241, July 30, 1996
Facts:
a.) Congress passed and enacted a law entitled “An Act Regulating the
Practice of Optometry Education, Integrating Optometrists, and for Other
Purposes”, which is also known as the Revised Optometry Law of 1995 or
R.A. No. 8050.
b.) On July 31, 1995, herein private respondents filed a petition for
declaratory relief and for prohibition and injunction with a prayer for a
temporary restraining order. They provided grounds on their petition
alleging that:
1.) there were unauthorized insertion and addition of provisions
without the knowledge of the Senate panel thus it derogates the
orderly procedure of the legislative process and vitiates the
legislative content;
2.) that R.A. No. 8050 violates the principle against undue
delegation of legislative power;
3.) that R.A. No. 8050 violates the due process clause of the
constitution and;
4.) that R.A No. 8050 violates the guaranty of freedom of speech
and press.
c.) In the undergoing examination of the petition of the herein respondents,
the body of petition revealed the members of the petition which were
Anacbedo Optical Co., Inc.; Optometry Practitioner of the Philippines
(OPAP); Cenevis Optometrist Association (COA); Association of Christian-
Muslim Optometrist (ACMO); and Southern Mindanao Optometrist
Association of the Philippines (SMOAP) and being represented by its
president. However, the body of petition gave no such details on the
juridical personality and the addresses of the associations except for
Acebedo Co., Inc. What is listed are the names of the presidents, their
profession and home addresses.
d.) As for the herein petitioners, they filed an opposition to the
application for preliminary injunction and alleged that:
1.
them to the relief they sought;
2.) respondents have not shown legal existence or capacity to file a
case;
3.) R.A. No. 8050 carries no injurious effect and;
4.) respondents failed to overcome the presumption of
constitutionally in favor of R.A. No. 8050.
e.) The Regional Trial Court granted the writ of preliminary injunction of the
herein respondents and the court is inclined to find prima facie, that the
petitioners have legal rights which will be affected by the Revised
Optometry Law, and that in its operation, said law is likely to inflict serious
and irreparable injury to such legal rights. The herein petitioners then now
filed the special action civil action for certiorari and prohibition with a
prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining
order.
Issue:
1.) Whether or not the private respondents have the locus standi
to question the constitutionality of R.A. No. 8050
2.) Whether or not there is an absence of a valid cause of action for either
declaratory relief or prohibition.
Ruling:
1.) No. The private respondents have no legal standing or capacity to
question the constitutionality of the questioned law. The Supreme Court has
cited that under Article 44 of the Civil Code, an association is considered a
juridical person if the law grants it a personality separate and distinct from
that of its members. If it is not to be proven as such, it cannot bring any civil
action. In the case at bar, it was founded that the private respondents did
not claim that they are juridical identities as they chose to remain silent
on the issue of the juridical personality of their “associations”, having
completely disregarded Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. Without
juridical entity, the private respondents are not considered to be a real
party in interest.
2.) The Supreme Court stated that the questioned civil case must be of a
failure for the reason of the missing requisites of a special civil action for
declaratory relief. The requisites as a special civil action for declaratory
relief are as follows: 1.) the existence of a justiciable controversy; 2.) the
controversy is between persons whose interests are adverse; 3.) that the
party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy; and 4.) that
the issue invoked is ripe for judicial determination. What is lacking is the
first and the fourth requisite.
Also, the Court stated that the unbending rule in constitutional law that
courts will not assume jurisdiction over a constitutional question unless the
following requisites must be first satisfied and these are: 1.) there must be
an actual case or controversy involving a conflict or rights susceptible of
judicial determination; 2.) the constitutional question must be raised by a
proper party; 3.) the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest
opportunity; and 4.) the resolution of the constitutional question
must be necessary to the resolution of the case.
An actual case or controversy means as existing case or controversy that is
appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjenctural or anticipatory. It
cannot be disputed that there is yet no actual case or controversy involving
all or any of the private respondents and all or any of the petitioners on the
other, with respect to rights and obligations under R.A. 8050. The Court
concluded that the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion
when he issued the writ of preliminary injunction restraining the
implementation of R.A. 8050. The Court granted to annul and set aside the
writ of preliminary injunction.
Note: Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court- Capacity - Facts showing the
capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be
sued in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an organized
association of persons that is made a party, must be averred. A party
desiring to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party or the
capacity of any party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, shall do
so by specific denial, which shall include such supporting particulars as are
peculiarly within the pleader's knowledge. Locus standi- means the right to
bring an action, to be heard in court, or to address the Court on a matter
before it.