STATE REGULATION OF HOSPITAL OPERATION i# is dsi dsi(n(nd

d&& s+s+ci cial

all%l% #o nsu nsurr i#s i#s
con
cono, o,icic $ia!
$ia!ili
ili#%
#% andand sur$i
sur$i$a $al/l/ And
And in the the
Defnition: legitima
legitimatete pursuit
pursuit o" economic
economic consider
consideration
ations,
s, the
• Lice
Licens
nsur
uree - gran
granti
ting
ng a lice
licens
nsee to oper
operat
ate
e and
and e7tent to which the public may be served and cured
main
maintatain
in a hosphospit
ital
al acco
accordrdin
ing
g to an apprapprov
oved
ed is e7panded, the pulse and li"e o" the medical sector
minimum standard. #uic!ens, and the regeneration o" the people as a
• Accr
ccredit
editat
atio
ion
n - a proc proces
esss that
that a heal
health
th care
care whole becomes more visibly attainable.
instit
instituti
ution,
on, provi
provider
der,, or progra
program m under
undergoe
goess to In #) ins#i#u#ion o" cos#'cu##in( ,asurs& #)
demonstrate compliance with standards developed )os+i#al )as a ri()# #o rduc #) "acili#is and
by an ocial agency. sr$ics #)a# ar d,d #o ! non'ssn#ial&
• Certifcation - a process indicating that an individual suc) #)a# #)ir rduc#ion or r,o$al .ould no#
or insti
institut
tution
ion has met met prede
predeter
termi
mined
ned standa
standard
rds
s ! d#ri,n#al #o #) ,dical condi#ion o" #)
Ac!nowle
Ac!nowledgme
dgment nt by a medical
medical specialty
specialty board o"  +a#in#/
success"ul completion o" re#uirements "or recognition o $or thethe mome oment, the the #uestuestiion to be
as a specialist. considered is whether the sub)ect "acilities
are
are indee deed non non-ess
-esse entia
ntiall = the the air air-
Cases: condit
condition
ioner,
er, teleph
telephone
one,, televi
televisio
sion,
n, and
re"riger
re"rigerator
ator = the removal o" which which would
would
MANILA DOCTORS HOSPITAL , petitioner, vs. SO UN CHUA caus
cause e thethe adve
adversrsee healhealth
th e4ec
e4ectsts andand
and VICKY TY , respondents. emot
emotio iona
nall trau
traumama the the resp
respononde
dent
ntss so
G.R. No. 150355 | July 31, 2006 (1D) claimed.
o Coroll
Corollary
ary to thisthis #uesti
#uestion on is whethe
whetherr the
$acts: petitioner observed the diligence o" a good
 %espond
%espondent ent Chua, mother
mother o" &y, was admitted admitted to "ath
"ather
er o" the the "ami
"amilyly in the the cours
ourse e o" 
petitioner hospital "or hypertension and diabetes. ascertaini
ascertaining ng the possible
possible repercu
repercussion
ssions s o" 
 'hile
'hile Chua
Chua was confned,
confned, another daughterdaughter (udith
(udith the removal
removal o" the "acilit "acilities
ies prior to the
Chua
Chua was was admi
admitttted
ed "or
"or trea
treatm
tmenentt o" in)u in)uri
ries
es remov
removal al itsel
itsel"" and "or a reaso reasonab
nable
le time
time
sustained a"ter a vehicular accident. &y shouldered therea"ter, with a view to prevent damage.
the hospital bills "or the two.   &he evidence in the the record frmly
frmly establishes that the
 A"ter
"ter (udi
(udith
th waswas discdischa
harg
rged
ed,, resp
respononde
dent
nt Chua
Chua sta4 o" the petitioner too! proactive steps to in"orm
remained confned. &y was able to pay *+,//.//. the relatives o" respondent Chua o" the removal o" 
 &he hospital bills eventually totaled *0,/1,23.2.
*0,/1,23.2. "acilities prior thereto, and to carry out the necessary
'hen &y &y was unable to pay the bills, bills, the hospital
hospital precautio
precautionary
nary measure
measures s to ensure
ensure that her health
allegedly pressured her, by cutting o4 the telephone and well-being would not be adversely a4ected: as
line in her room and removing the air-conditioning early as around two wee!s a"ter her admission
unit,
unit, televi
televisio
sion
n set,
set, and re"rire"riger
gerato
ator,
r, re"us
re"using
ing to  Authoriti
Authorities,
es, includin
including g those o" common common law origin,origin,
rend
renderer medi
medicacall atten
attendadanc
ncee and
and to chan changege the
the e7plicitly
e7plicitly declare that a patient cannot be detained in
hospi
hospital
tal gown
gown and bed bed sheet
sheets, s, and barrin
barring g the a hospital "or non-payment o" the hospital bill.
priv
private
ate nurs
nurseses or midw midwivives
es "rom
"rom assi assist
stin
ingg the
the o 6" the patient
patient cannot
cannot pay the hospita hospitall or
patient, to settle the same through the signing o" a physician9s bill, the law provides a remedy
promissory note. "or them to pursu pursue,e, that is, by fling fling the
  &y
 &y issued postdated chec!s to pay the note. &he necessary suit in court "or the recovery o" 
chec!s bounced. &he petitioner alleged that that as such "ee or bill.
early as one wee! a"ter respondent Chua had been o 6" the patient is prevented "rom leaving the
admitted to its hospital, Dr. %ody 5y, her attending hospital "or his inability to pay the bill, any
physician, had already given instructions "or her to person who can act on his behal" can apply
be discharg
discharged,
ed, but responde
respondentsnts insisted
insisted that Chua in cour
courtt "or"or the
the issu
issuan ance
ce o" thethe writ
writ o" 
remain in confnement. habeas corpus.
 6t also
also alle
allege
ged
d that
that &y volu volunt
ntar
aril
ily
y sign
signed
ed the
the   &he "orm o" restraint must be total movement must
agreement that she will pay the bills and that no be restrained in all directions. 6" restraint is partial,
undue pressure was e7erted by them and that the e.g., in a particular direction with "reedom to proceed
cutting-o4 o" the telephone line and removal o" the in another, the restraint on the person9s liberty is not
air-conditioning unit, television set, and re"rigerator total.
cannot
cannot constitut
constitute e unwarrant
unwarranted ed actuations
actuations,, "or the o ;owever, the hospital may legally detain a
same were resorted to as cost-cutting measures and patient against his will:
to minimi8e respondents9 charges that were already  when he is a detained or convicted
piling up, especially a"ter respondent &y re"used to prisoner, or
sett
settle
le thethe bala
balancncee notw
notwitiths
hsta
tand
ndining
g "re#
"re#ue
uent
nt  when the patient is su4ering "rom a
dema
demand nds.
s. $inal
inally
ly it alle
allege
ged d that
that this
this case
case waswas very contagious disease where his
instit
institute
utedd by &y to provi provide
de lever
leverage
age agains
againstt the release will be pre)udicial to public
hospital "or fling criminal charges against the latter heal
healthth,, or when
when the the pati
patien
entt is
"or violation o" * 33. mentally
mentally ill such that his release release
will endanger public sa"ety,
6ssue: 'hether or not the hospital is liable "or damages  or in other e7igent cases as may be
provided by law.
;eld: <o o >oreover, under the common law doctrines
Conclu
Conclusio
sions
ns ar !r"#
!r"# o" sound
sound $idn
$idn#ia#iar%
r% on tort, it does not constitute a trespass to
!asis& sl"'sr$in( and uncorro!ora#d as #)% the person to momentarily prevent him "rom
ar leavi
leaving
ng the prem premise
isess or any part part there
thereo" o" 
6ndeed
6ndeed the operation
operation o" private
private pay hospitals
hospitals and becaus
because e he re"ure"uses
ses to comply
comply withwith some
some
medical clinics is impressed with public interest and reasonabl
reasonable e condition
condition sub)ect
sub)ect to which
which he
imbued
imbued with a heavy social responsibil
responsibility
ity.. *u# #) entered them. 6n all cases, the condition o" 
)os+i#al is also a !usinss& and& as a !usinss& this !ind o" restraint must be reasonable in
i# )as
)as a ri()
ri()## #o ins#
ins#i#
i#u#
u#
 all
all ,as
,asur urs
s o"  the light o" the circumstances.
-cinc% co,,nsura# #o #) nds "or .)ic)
Cas Di(s# and Rla#d Pro$isions on L(al Mdicin !asd on A##%/ Rodl 0
Ca+ul0s S%lla!us
Ri$ad& S)rin L/ 1 2 s# S, AY 3425 6 3427 1 Arllano Uni$rsi#% Sc)ool o" La.
 o At any rate, as stated above, the patient is
"ree to leave the premises, even in the
ostensible violation o" these conditions,
a"ter being momentarily interrupted by the
hospital sta4 "or purposes o" in"orming him
o" those reasonable conditions, such as the
assessment o" whether the patient is ft to
leave, insane, or su4ering "rom a contagious
disease, etc., or simply "or purposes o"  Causaren who "ell "rom the bed as she was trying to
ma!ing a demand to settle the bill.
o I" #) +a#in# c)ooss #o a!scond or
la$ .i#)ou# #) consn# o" #)
)os+i#al in $iola#ion o" an% o" #)
condi#ions d,d #o ! rasona!l
undr #) circu,s#ancs& #) )os+i#al
,a% non#)lss r(is#r i#s +ro#s#
and ,a% c)oos #o +ursu #) l(al
r,dis available under law, provided
that the hospital may not physically detain
the patient, unless the case "alls under the
e7ceptions abovestated.
 Authorities are o" the view that, ordinarily, a hospital,
especially i" it is a private pay hospital, is entitled to
be compensated "or its services, by either an e7press
or an implied contract, and i" no e7press contract
e7ists, there is generally an implied agreement that
the patient will pay the reasonable value o" the
services rendered when a hospital treats a patient9s
in)uries, it has an en"orceable claim "or "ull payment
"or its services, regardless o" the patient9s fnancial
status.
HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES& INC/ ' MEDICAL
CENTER MANILA, *etitioner, vs. HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT
SERVICES& INC/ ' MEDICAL CENTER MANILA EMPLOYEES
ASS OCIATI ON'AF8 and EDNA R/ DE C AS TR O&
%espondents.
G.R. No. 176287 | January 31, 2011 (2D)
$acts:
 ?ne %ufna Causaren, an 0-year-old patient confned
at petitioner hospital "ell "rom the right side o" the
bed as she was trying to reach "or the bedpan.
 ecause o" what happened, the niece o" patient
Causaren staying in the room was awa!ened and she
sought assistance "rom the nurse station. 6nstead o"  would suce as the e7treme penalty o" dismissal
personally seeing the patient, respondent De Castro
directed ward-cler! orientee @uillergan to chec! the
patient. &he vital signs o" the patient were normal.
Later, the physician on duty and the nursing sta4 on
duty "or the ne7t shi"t again attended to patient
Causaren.
 A "ormal investigation was conducted regarding the
said incident. &he 6nvestigation Committee "ound
that the sub)ect incident happened between 00://
a.m. to 00:/ a.m. o" >arch 3, 0222. &he three
other nurses "or the shi"t were not at the nurse
station.
  &he committee recommended that despite her more
than seven years o" service, respondent De Castro
should be terminated "rom employment "or her lapse
in responding to the incident and "or trying to
manipulate and inuence her sta4 to cover-up the
incident. A notice o" termination was sent to the
respondent.
 %espondent De Castro, with the assistance o" 
respondent association, fled a Complaint "or illegal
dismissal against petitioners.
 LA: 6n "avor o" respondent <L%C: %eversed LA CA:
Bpheld LA
6ssue: 'hether or not respondent De Castros dismissal is
illegal
;eld: es
Cas Di(s# and Rla#d Pro$isions on L(al Mdicin !asd on A##%/ Rodl
Ca+ul0s S%lla!us
Ri$ad& S)rin L/ 1 2 s# S, AY 3425 6 3427 1 Arllano Uni$rsi#% Sc)ool o" La.
 *etitioners anchor respondent De Castros
termination o" employment on the ground o" serious
misconduct "or "ailure to personally attend to patient
Causaren who "ell "rom the bed as she was trying to
reach "or the bedpan.
 *etitioners anchor respondent De Castros
termination o" employment on the ground o" serious
misconduct "or "ailure to personally attend to patient
reach "or the bedpan.
o Despite our fnding o" culpability against
respondent De Castro however, we do not
see any wrong"ul intent, deliberate re"usal,
or bad "aith on her part when, instead o" 
personally attending to patient Causaren,
she re#uested <ursing Assistant &atad and
ward-cler! orientee @uillergan to see the
patient, as she was then attending to a
newly-admitted patient at %oom 10/.
o eing her frst o4ense, respondent De
Castro cannot be said to be grossly
negligent so as to )usti"y her termination o" 
employment. >oreover, petitioners
allegation, that respondent De Castro
e7erted undue pressure upon her co-nurses
to alter the actual time o" the incident so as
to e7culpate her "rom any liability, was not
clearly substantiated.
 <egligence is defned as the "ailure to e7ercise the
standard o" care that a reasonably prudent person
would have e7ercised in a similar situation.
o  &he Court emphasi8es that #) na#ur o" 
#) !usinss o" a )os+i#al r9uirs a
)i()r d(r o" cau#ion and :ac#in(
s#andard o" dili(nc in +a#in#
,ana(,n# and )al#) car as .)a#
is in$ol$d ar li$s o" +a#in#s .)o
s; ur(n# ,dical assis#anc/ An ac#
or o,ission #)a# "alls s)or# o" #)
r9uird d(r o" car and dili(nc
a,oun#s #o srious ,isconduc# .)ic)
cons#i#u#s a su-cin# (round "or
dis,issal/
 ;owever, in some cases, the Court had ruled that
sanctioning an erring employee with suspension
would be too harsh.
o Considering that this was the frst o4ense o" 
respondent De Castro in her nine E2F years
o" employment with petitioner hospital as a
sta4 nurse without any previous derogatory
record and, "urther, as her lapse was not
characteri8ed by any wrong"ul motive or
deceit"ul conduct.
3

STATE REGULATION OF PRACTICE OF MEDICINE
Dn# $/ 8s# Vir(inia
129 U.S. 114 | January 14, 1889 (U.S. Supr! "our#)
$acts: $ran! Dent was a physician o" the Gclectic sect, a group
which accepted and taught the conventional medical science
o" the time. ;owever, in the area o" therapeutics, the Gclectics
carried on a rigorous campaign against e7cesses o" drugging
and bleeding, which were still practices used by many
physicians at the time. 6n addition, all but one o" their medical
schools were open to women.
Dent had been in practice "or si7 years when he was
convicted under an 03 'est Hirginia law which re#uired
physicians to hold a degree "rom a reputable medical college,
pass an e7amination, or prove practice in 'est Hirginia "or the
previous ten years. 6n this case, the 5tate oard o" ;ealth
re"used to accept Dent9s degree "rom the American >edical
Gclectic College o" Cincinnati.
;eld:
 &he Court9s unanimous opinion which upheld the 'est Hirginia
statute noted that each citi8en had a right to "ollow any law"ul
calling, sub)ect to natural restraints such as age, se7, etc., as
well as state restrictions, as long as those state restrictions
were reasonable. 6n addition, the Court ruled #)a# ,dicin&
!caus o" #) car"ul na#ur o" i#s #rainin(& #) lar(
;no.ld( o" #) )u,an !od% r9uird o" doc#ors& and
na#ur o" li"'and'da#) circu,s#ancs .i#) .)ic)
doc#ors dal#& rlianc ndd #o ! +lacd on #)
assuranc o" a licns/ Certain circumstances might
Cas Di(s# and Rla#d Pro$isions on L(al Mdicin !asd on A##%/ Rodl
Ca+ul0s S%lla!us
Ri$ad& S)rin L/ 1 2 s# S, AY 3425 6 3427 1 Arllano Uni$rsi#% Sc)ool o" La.
prompt states to e7clude people without licenses "rom
practicing medicine.
FELI< MAR=UE>, petitioner, vs. THE *OARD OF MEDICAL
E<AMINERS and THE SECRETARY'TREASURER OF THE
*OARD OF MEDICAL E<AMINERS, respondent.
G.R. No. $%24119 | &u'u# 8, 1925 (*)
$acts: *etitioner is a graduate o" the Chicago >edical College,
having received the degree o" >.D. "rom said institution on
 (une , o" the year 0233. <o #uestion appears to have been
made by the respondents with respect to the petitioner9s
#ualifcations o" the physician9s e7aminations in other
respects, but they have denied him admission to the
e7aminations on the grounds that the Chicago >edical
College, where the petitioner was graduated, has been
classifed as a Class C medical college by the <ational >edical
5tate oard o" the Bnited 5tates. $or this reason the
respondents, in accordance with the regulations o" the board
now in e4ect, have denied the re#uisite standing to said
institution and e7cluded petitioner.
6ssue: 'hether or not petitioner has a right to be admitted "or
medical e7aminations
;eld: <o
6n the argument "or the petitioner it is admitted that under Act
<o. 000, and the regulations now in "orce, the petitioner is
dis#ualifed to ta!e the e7aminations but it is pointed out that
at the time he began and even when he conducted his course
in the Chicago >edical 5chool, said institution was still
recogni8ed as a reputable medical institution and the
#uestion submitted is +#r # p#-#-onr /a oul 
'orn y # la+ an r'ula#-on -n or/ a# # #-! o -
nroll!n# -n an 'raua#-on ro! # "-/a'o -/al
S/ool, or y #o -n or/ a# # #-!  l - appl-/a#-on
or a!--on, on or aou# Sp#!r 26, 1924. 6t is
submitted "or the petitioner that his case should be governed
by the law and regulations at the time o" his graduation. &o
hold otherwise, it is insisted, is to ma!e the law retroactive in
e4ect and to do irreparable damage to the petitioner, who has
pursued his wor! in the institution re"erred to in good "aith,
believing that said school had the status necessary to #uali"y
him "rom e7amination.
 &he position ta!en by the petitioner is, we thin!, untenable /
T) 9us#ion .)#)r a ,dical ins#i#u#ion is ?a
r+u#a!l ,dical sc)ool&? in #) sns in#ndd !%
#) la.& is $s#d in #) *oard o" Mdical E:a,inrs&
and al#)ou() #) ac#ion #a;n !% #), , a%
conci$a!l%& in isola#d cass& rsul# in )ards)i+&
n$r#)lss #) in#rs#s o" #) +u!lic r9uir #)a#
#) !oard s)ould ! "r #o :rcis i#s @ud(,n# and
discr#ion .i#)ou# r"rnc #o #) c# o" #)
d#r,ina#ion o" #) 9us#ion in +ar#icular ins#ancs/
T)r can in #) na#ur o" #)in(s ! no $s#d ri()# in
an :is#in( la.& .)ic) .ould +rclud i#s c)an( or
r+al/ No on .)o )as co,,ncd +r+ara#ion in a
+ar#icular ins#i#u#ion )as an% inc)oa# ri()# on accoun#
o" #)a# "ac#/   6" the law were otherwise upon this point, it
would be impossible "or the oard o" >edical G7aminers to
give e4ect to the !nowledge which they "rom time to time
ac#uire as to the standing o" medical schools and an
intending physician, upon matriculating in a particular college,
ta!es upon himsel" the ris! o" changes that may be made in
the standing o" the institution by the board.
PHILIPPINE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, petitioner, vs. *OARD
OF MEDICAL E<AMINERS and BOSE MA/ TORRES,
respondents.
G.R. No. $%25135 | Sp#!r 21, 1968 (*)
$acts: &orres graduated "rom the Bniversity o" arcelona,
5pain, with the degree o" Licentiate in >edicine and 5urgery.
;e was granted special authority to practice medicine in

Lamitan, asilan City, where he resides, pursuant to 5ection
110EeF o" the %evised Administrative Code: 5urely said treaty was not made to discriminate against
*hilippine schools, colleges or universities, much less against
S". 771. ron !p# ro! r'-#ra#-on.  nationals o" the *hilippines.
R'-#ra#-on all no#  ru-r o # ollo+-n'
/la o pron: . . .  &he Court held that said Tra#% ,rl% :#ndd #o
di+lo,as issud or d(rs con"rrd !% duca#ional
() ;n /a o p-!-/ or -n !un-/-pal-#- +r ins#i#u#ions o" S+ain #) sa, rco(ni#ion and
#r - no l'ally ual- pra/#-/-n' py-/-an, or  #ra#,n# #)a# . accord #o si,ilar di+lo,as or
+n # /-r/u!#an/ ru-r -#, -n # -n#r# o  d(rs "ro, local ins#i#u#ions o" larnin( #)a#
# pul-/ al#, # D-r/#or o <al# !ay -u )oldrs o" said S+anis) di+lo,as or d(rs ,us# #a;
p/-al au#or-=a#-on, #o all !-/al #un# +o #) :a,ina#ion +rscri!d !% our la.s "or )oldrs o" 
a /o!pl# # r# #r yar o #-r #u-, si,ilar di+lo,as or d(rs "ro, duca#ional
or #o pron +o a ual- -n !-/-n, an #o ins#i#u#ions in #) P)ili++ins that resolution <o. 3,
'raua# or r'-#r nur, +o !ay ru# -#. series o" 02K, o" respondent oard is violative o" %epublic Act
<o. 33
?n motion "or reconsideration fled by respondent, the oard
issued a resolution, granting respondent a certifcate to TERESITA TA*LARIN et. al, in their behal" and in behal" o" 
practice medicine in the *hilippines without the e7amination applicants "or admission into the >edical Colleges during the
re#uired in %epublic Act <o. 33. &he resolution relied school year 021- and "uture years who have not ta!en or
there"or upon &he &reaty on the Halidity o" Academic Degrees success"ully hurdled tile <ational >edical Admission &est
and &he G7ercise o" the *ro"essions between the %epublic o"  E<>A&F. petitioners, vs. THE HONORA*LE BUDGE
the *hilippines and the 5panish 5tate. ANGELINA S/ GUTIERRE>, *residing (udge o" ranch H66
o" the %egional &rial Court o" the <ational Capital (udicial
*etitioner herein, *hilippine >edical Association, addressed %egion with seat at >anila, &;G ;?<?%ALG 5GC%G&A%
the Chairman o" the oard a communication re#uesting L?B%DG5 MB65B>6<@, in her capacity as Chairman o" the
reconsideration o" said resolution, upon the ground that, ?A%D ?$ >GD6CAL GDBCA&6?<, and &;G CG<&G% $?%
pursuant to said >edical Act o" 022, respondent has to ta!e GDBCA&6?<AL >GA5B%G>G<& ECG>F, respondents.
and pass the e7amination therein prescribed, be"ore he can G.R. No. 78164 | July 31, 1987 (*)
be allowed to practice medicine in the *hilippines. 5aid
Chairman then replied, stating Ithat the fnal decision on the $acts: &he petitioners see! admission into colleges or schools
matter will have to come "rom the *resident o" the *hilippines o" medicine. ;owever the petitioners either did not ta!e or did
upon whose authority said resolution has been fnally not success"ully ta!e the <ational >edical Admission &est
approved and implemented.I E<>A&F. %epublic Act 33 as amended by %.A. +33+ and
2+K, !nown as the >edical Act o" 022 created, among
6ssue: 'hether or not he oard had violated %epublic Act <o. others, the oard o" >edical Gducation E>GF whose "unctions
33 in granting respondent9s certifcate "or the general include Ito determine and prescribe re#uirements "or
practice o" medicine in the *hilippines without the admission into a recogni8ed college o" medicineI E5ec.  EaF.
e7amination prescribed in said Act 5ection 1 o" the same Act re#uires "rom applicants to present
a certifcate o" eligibility "or entrance EceaF to medical school
;eld: es "rom the >G. >GC5 ?rder <o. 3, s. 02, issued by the then
>inister o" Gducation, Culture and 5ports, established a
 &he main issue herein hinges on the interpretation o" Article 6 uni"orm admission test called <ational >edical Admission &est
o" the &reaty a"orementioned, reading as "ollows: as additional re#uirement "or issuance o" a certifcate o" 
eligibility.
> na#-onal o o# /oun#r- +o all a o#a-n
'r or -plo!a #o pra/#-/ # l-ral pro-on -n *etitioners then fled with the %&C a petition "or Declaratory
-#r o # "on#ra/#-n' S#a#, -u y /o!p#n# na#-onal  (udgment and *rohibition with a prayer &emporary %estraining
au#or-#-, all  ! /o!p#n# #o r/- a- ?rder and *reliminary 6n)unction see!ing to en)oin the 5ec. o" 
 pro-on -n # #rr-#ory o # ?#r, u@/ # #o # la+ educ, >G "rom en"orcing 5ec. EaF and E"F o" %.A. +33+ and
an r'ula#-on o # la##r. An # 'r or -plo!a o  >GC5 ?rder no. 3 and "rom re#uiring the ta!ing and passing
*a/lor, -u y /o!p#n# na#-onal au#or-#- allo+ -# o" the <>A& as condition "or securing EceaF.
olr +-#ou# ru-r-n' ur#r -n/ o pro/-n/y #o
 puru nor!ally -'r /our o #uy,  all alo  6ssue: 'hether or not 5ec. EaF and E"F o" %.A. +33+ and >GC5
! ual- #o /on#-nu - #u- -n # #rr-#ory o  ?rder no. 3 violate the constitution as they prescribe an
-#r ar#y -n /onor!-#y +-# # appl-/al la+ an un"air, unreasonable and ine#uitable re#uirement
r'ula#-on o # S#a# +-/ r/o'n-= # al--#y o #
#-#l or -plo!a -n u#-on, an +-# # rul an r'ula#-on ;eld: <o
o # par#-/ular u/a#-onal -n#-#u#-on -n +-/  -n#n #o
 puru - #u-. *erhaps the only issue that needs some consideration is
whether there is some reasonable relation between the
6nasmuch as the theory o" respondent herein cannot be prescribing o" passing the <>A& as a condition "or admission
accepted without placing graduates "rom our own educational to medical school on the one hand, and the securing o" the
institutions at a disadvantage vis-a-vis 5panish graduates health and sa"ety o" the general community, on the other
"rom 5panish schools, colleges or universities. 6ndeed, the hand. &his #uestion is perhaps most use"ully approached by
latter could J under respondent9s pretense J engage in the recalling that the regulation o" the practice o" medicine in all
practice o" medicine in the *hilippines without ta!ing the its branches has long been recogni8ed as a reasonable
e7amination prescribed in %epublic Act <o. 33, whereas the method o" protecting the health and sa"ety o" the public. T)a#
"ormer would have to ta!e and pass said e7amination. 'orse #) +o.r #o r(ula# and con#rol #) +rac#ic o" 
still, since J as we ruled in the Gar/-a /a J the benefts o"  ,dicin includs #) +o.r #o r(ula# ad,ission #o
the a"orementioned &reaty cannot be availed o" in the #) ran;s o" #)os au#)orid #o +rac#ic ,dicin& is
*hilippines e7cept by 5panish sub)ects, the result would be J als o .ll rco(ni d/ T)us& l (isla#ion and
should respondent9s contention be sustained J that ad,inis#ra#i$ r(ula#ions r9uirin( #)os .)o .is) #o
graduates "rom 5panish schools o" medicine would be entitled +rac#ic ,dicin rs# #o #a; and +ass ,dical !oard
to practice medicine in the *hilippines without e7amination, i"  :a,ina#ions )a$ lon( a(o !n rco(nid as $alid
they were 5panish sub)ects, but not i" they are $ilipinos. :rciss o" (o$rn,n#al +o.r/   5imilarly, #)
Cas Di(s# and Rla#d Pro$isions on L(al Mdicin !asd on A##%/ Rodl +
Ca+ul0s S%lla!us
Ri$ad& S)rin L/ 1 2 s# S, AY 3425 6 3427 1 Arllano Uni$rsi#% Sc)ool o" La.
s#a!lis),n# o" ,ini,u, ,dical duca#ional
r9uir,n#s'i//& #) co,+l#ion o" +rscri!d
courss in a rco(nid ,dical sc)ool'"or ad,ission
#o #) ,dical +ro"ssion& )as also !n sus#aind as a
l(i#i,a# :rcis o" #) r(ula#or% au#)ori#% o" #)
s#a#/ 'hat we have be"ore us in the instant case is closely
related: the regulation o" access to medical schools. >GC5
?rder <o. 3, s. 02, articulates the rationale o" regulation o"  A$$6%>GDR -&he college fled civil case <o. 0 applying "or
this type: the improvement o" the pro"essional and technical
#uality o" the graduates o" medical schools, by upgrading the
#uality o" those admitted to the student body o" the medical
schools. T)a# u+(radin( is sou()# !% slc#i$i#% in #)
+rocss o" ad,ission& slc#i$i#% consis#in(& a,on(
o#)r #)in(s& o" li,i#in( ad,ission #o #)os .)o :)i!i#
in #) r9uird d(r #) a+#i#ud "or ,dical s#udis
and $n#uall% "or ,dical +rac#ic/ &he need to
maintain, and the diculties o" maintaining, high standards in
our pro"essional schools in general, and medical schools in
particular, in the current state o" our social and economic
development, are widely !nown.
proposed a gradual phase-out so as not to dislocate the
students and minimi8ed fnancial losses
 ALL?'GD to operate until >ay 022. -&he college appealed
the decision to the ?*, but the G7ecutive 5ecretary "ound no
reason to disturb the contested decision
a writ o" preliminary in)unction to restrain its implementation
A**%?HGDR Eby (udge Al"onso holding that there were no
evidence supporting the fndings in the (une 0, 02 report,
and that contrary to the fndings, the laboratory and library
areas were big enough and operations in the base hospital
was going smoothly.F -&hus, the present petition.
6ssue: 'hether or not (udge Al"onso acted with grave abuse o" 
discretion in substituting his )udgment to "or the
membersQevaluators

T) Cour# !li$s #)a# #) (o$rn,n# is n#i#ld #o ;eld: @iven that the 5ecretary o" Gducation, Culture and
+rscri! an ad,ission #s# li; #) NMAT as a ,ans 5ports e7ercises the power to en)oin compliance with the
o" ac)i$in( i#s s#a#d o!@c#i$ o" ?u+(radin( #) re#uirements laid down "or medical schools and to mete out
slc#ion o" a++lican#s in#o our ,dical sc)ools? and o"  sanctions where he fnds that violations thereo" have been
?i,+ro$in( #) 9uali#% o" ,dical duca#ion in #) committed, it was a grave abuse o" discretion "or the
coun#r%/? respondent )udge to issue the #uestioned in)unction and
thereby thwart ocial action, in the premises correctly ta!en,
THE *OARD OF MEDICAL EDUCATION and #) HON/ allowing the College to operate without the re#uisite
LOURDES R/ =UISUM*ING, in her capacity as 5ecretary o"  government permit. A single ocular inspection, done a"ter the
the Department o" Gducation, Culture and 5ports and College had been pre-warned thereo", did not, in the
Chairman, oard o" >edical Gducation, petitioners, vs. HON/ circumstances, warrant only the fndings o" more #ualifed
DANIEL P/ ALFONSO , *residing (udge o" the %egional &rial inspectors about the true state o" the College, its "aculty,
Court, ranch 1+, $ourth (udicial %egion, Antipolo, %i8al, and "acilities, operations, etc. &he, members o" the evaluating
the *;6L6**6<G >B5L6>-C;%65&6A< C?LLG@G ?$ >GD6C6<G team came "rom the di4erent sectors in the felds o" 
$?B<DA&6?<, 6<C., respondents. education and medicine, and their )udgment in this particular
G.R. No. 88259 | &u'u# 10, 1989 (*) area is certainly better than that o" the respondent (udge
whose sole and only visit to the school could hardly have
$acts: *etitioners >G, the government agency which given him much more to go on than a brie" loo! at the
supervises and regulates the countrys medical colleges, 5ec. physical plant and "acilities and into the conduct o" the
Muisimbing, chairman o" the Department o" Gducation, Culture classes and other school activities. %espondent (udge gravely
and 5ports prayed "or a writ o" certiorari to nulli"y the order o"  abused his discretion in substituting his )udgment "or theirs. 6t
herein %espondent (udge Al"onso in Civil case <o. 0 is well-settled doctrine that courts o" )ustice should not
restraining the en"orcement o" *et. ?rder o" closure o"  generally inter"ere with purely administrative and
*hilippine >uslim-Christian College o" >edicine $oundation discretionary "unctions that courts have no supervisory power
6ncEthe collegeF. -&he college was "ounded on 020 "or the over the proceedings and actions o" the administrative
purpose o" producing physicians who will emancipate >uslim departments o" the government involving the e7ercise o" 
citi8ens "rom age-old attitudes o" health. -;owever, because  )udgment and fndings o" "acts, because by reason o" their
o" the unstable peace and order situation in >indanao, the special !nowledge and e7pertise over matters "alling under
college was established in Antipolo, %i8al, given a temporary their )urisdiction, the latter are in a better position to pass
permit to operate instead o" the originally proposed location in  )udgment on such matters and their fndings o" "acts in that
Namboanga City. Antipolo was adopted as its permanent site regard are generally accorded respect, i" not fnality, by the
and the name was changed to %i8al College o" >edicine. -6n courts. &here are, to be sure, e7ceptions to this general rule
02, DGC5 O >G authori8ed the Commission on >edical but none o" them obtains in this case.
Gducation to conduct a study o" all >edical 5chools in the
*hilippines. -&he report showed that the college "ell very much
short o" the minimum standards set "or medical schools.
$urther, the team o" inspectors cited the 4. @rounds among
others: EaFthe College was not "ulflling its purpose due
inappropriate location EbFlac! o" university aliation "or
balance humanistic and scientifc education EcF absence o" 
philosophy based hospitals "or students training EdFmore than
K/P o" the college "aculty did not teach "ull time -&he school
disputed these fndings as biased and discriminatory and
re#uested >G to send another team o" doctors "or re-
evaluation. 3nd team confrmed the previous fndings and
recommended the phase-out o" the school. -&here were third
and "ourth evaluations but the college "ailed both and was
rendered inade#uate in all aspects. -&he DGC5 recommended
the college "or closure but somehow the college succeeded to
have the oard "orm yet another team o" inspectors but
although the fndings show that there were ma)or e4orts to
improve the college, it is still rendered inade#uate and
recommended "or closure wQ provisions to disperse its
students to other medical schools. ->r. Hictor
5umulongEchairman o" ?&F, upon learning the same
Cas Di(s# and Rla#d Pro$isions on L(al Mdicin !asd on A##%/ Rodl 
Ca+ul0s S%lla!us
Ri$ad& S)rin L/ 1 2 s# S, AY 3425 6 3427 1 Arllano Uni$rsi#% Sc)ool o" La.
 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION& CULTURE AND SPORTS
DECS and DIRECTOR OF CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL
MEASUREMENT, petitioners, vs. RO*ERTO REY C/ SAN
DIEGO and BUDGE TERESITA DI>ON'CAPULONG, in her
capacity as *residing (udge o" the %egional &rial Court o" 
Halen8uela, >etro >anila, ranch 013, respondents.
G.R. No. 89572 | D/!r 21, 1989 (*)

$acts: &he private respondent is a graduate o" the Bniversity

o" the Gast with a degree o" achelor o" 5cience in Noology.
 &he petitioner claims that he too! the <>A& three times and
un!ed it as many times. 0 'hen he applied to ta!e it again,
the petitioner re)ected his application on the basis o" the
>GC5 ?rder <o. 03, 5eries o" 0213 which provides that:

) & #un# all  allo+ only #r (3) /an/ #o #aB

# N&>. &#r #r (3) u//- a-lur, a #un# all
no#  allo+ #o #aB # N&> or # our# #-!.

6n his original petition "or mandamus, he frst invo!ed his

constitutional rights to academic "reedom and #uality
education. y agreement o" the parties, the private
respondent was allowed to ta!e the <>A&. 6n an amended
petition fled with leave o" court, he s#uarely challenged the
constitutionality o" the said rule. &he additional grounds raised
were due process and e#ual protection.

6ssue: 'hether a person who has thrice "ailed the <ational

>edical Admission &est E<>A&F is entitled to ta!e it again

;eld: <o

6n >alar-n . Gu#-rr= , this Court upheld the constitutionality

o" the <>A& as a measure intended to limit the admission to
medical schools only to those who have initially proved their
competence and preparation "or a medical education.

 &he government is entitled to prescribe an admission

test li!e the <>A& as a means o" achieving its stated
ob)ective o" Iupgrading the selection o" applicants
into SourT medical schoolsI and o" IimprovSingT the
#uality o" medical education in the country.I @iven
the widespread use today o" such admission tests in,
"or instance, medical schools in the Bnited 5tates o" 
America Ethe >edical College Admission &est S>CA&T
and #uite probably, in other countries with "ar more
developed educational resources than our own, and
ta!ing into account the "ailure or inability o" the
petitioners to even attempt to prove otherwise, we
are entitled to hold that the <>A& is reasonably
related to the securing o" the ultimate end o" 
legislation and regulation in this area. &hat end, it is
use"ul to recall, is the protection o" the public "rom
the potentially deadly e4ects o" incompetence and
ignorance in those who would underta!e to treat our
bodies and minds "or disease or trauma.

Cas Di(s# and Rla#d Pro$isions on L(al Mdicin !asd on A##%/ Rodl K
Ca+ul0s S%lla!us
Ri$ad& S)rin L/ 1 2 s# S, AY 3425 6 3427 1 Arllano Uni$rsi#% Sc)ool o" La.
 &he sub)ect o" the challenged regulation is certainly within the
ambit o" the police power. 6t is the right and indeed the
responsibility o" the 5tate to insure that the medical
pro"ession is not infltrated by incompetents to whom patients
may unwarily entrust their lives and health.
 &he method employed by the challenged regulation is not
irrelevant to the purpose o" the law nor is it arbitrary or
oppressive. &he three-un! rule is intended to insulate the
medical schools and ultimately the medical pro"ession "rom
the intrusion o" those not #ualifed to be doctors.
'hile every person is entitled to aspire to be a doctor, he
does not have a constitutional right to be a doctor. &his is true
o" any other calling in which the public interest is involved
and the closer the lin!, the longer the bridge to one9s
ambition. &he 5tate 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. &hese resources must be
applied in a manner that will best promote the common good
while also giving the individual a sense o" satis"action.
 &he right to #uality education invo!ed by the private
respondent is not absolute. &he Constitution also provides
that Ievery citi8en has the right to choose a pro"ession or
course o" study, sub)ect to "air, reasonable and e#uitable
admission and academic re#uirements.
 &he contention that the challenged rule violates the e#ual
protection clause is not well-ta!en. A law does not have to
operate with e#ual "orce on all persons or things to be
con"ormable to Article 666, 5ection 0 o" the Constitution.
 &here can be no #uestion that a substantial distinction e7ists
between medical students and other students who are not
sub)ected to the <>A& and the three-un! rule. &he medical
pro"ession directly a4ects the very lives o" the people, unli!e
other careers which, "or this reason, do not re#uire more
vigilant regulation. &he accountant, "or e7ample, while
belonging to an e#ually respectable pro"ession, does not hold
the same delicate responsibility as that o" the physician and
so need not be similarly treated.
 &here would be une#ual protection i" some applicants who
have passed the tests are admitted and others who have also
#ualifed are denied entrance. 6n other words, what the e#ual
protection re#uires is e#uality among e#uals.
PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION PRC et al.
vs. ARLENE V/ DE GU>MAN  et al.
G.R. No. 144681 | Jun 21, 2004 (2D)
$acts: &he respondents are all graduates o" the $atima College
o" >edicine, Halen8uela City, >etro >anila. &hey passed the
*hysician Licensure G7amination conducted in $ebruary 022
by the oard o" >edicine EoardF. *etitioner *ro"essional
%egulation Commission E*%CF then released their names as
success"ul e7aminees in the medical licensure e7amination.
5hortly therea"ter, the oard observed that the grades o" the
seventy-nine success"ul e7aminees "rom $atima College in the
two most dicult sub)ects in the medical licensure e7am,
iochemistry Eio-ChemF and ?bstetrics and @ynecology E?-
@yneF, were unusually and e7ceptionally high. Gleven $atima
e7aminees scored 0//P in io-Chem and ten got 0//P in ?-
@yne, another eleven got 22P in io-Chem, and twenty-one
scored 22P in ?-@yne.
$or its part, the <6 "ound that Uthe #uestionable passing rate
o" $atima e7aminees in the 022 *hysician G7amination leads
to the conclusion that the $atima e7aminees gained early
access to the test #uestions.V
6ssue: 'hether or not respondents should be allowed to ta!e
their oaths as physicians and be registered in the rolls o" the
*%C, having "ulflled the re#uirements o" %epublic Act <o.
33
Cas Di(s# and Rla#d Pro$isions on L(al Mdicin !asd on A##%/ Rodl
Ca+ul0s S%lla!us
Ri$ad& S)rin L/ 1 2 s# S, AY 3425 6 3427 1 Arllano Uni$rsi#% Sc)ool o" La.
;eld: <o
%espondents counter that having passed the 022 licensure
e7aminations "or physicians, the petitioners have the
obligation to administer to them the oath as physicians and to
issue their certifcates o" registration as physicians pursuant
to 5ection 3/ o" %ep. Act <o. 33.
 &he intent or meaning o" the statute should be ascertained
"rom the statute ta!en as a whole, not "rom an isolated part o" 
the provision. Accordingly, 5ection 3/, o" %ep. Act <o. 33,
as amended should be read in con)unction with the other
provisions o" the Act. &hus, to determine whether the
petitioners had the ministerial obligation to administer the
;ippocratic ?ath to respondents and register them as
physicians, recourse must be had to the entirety o" the
>edical Act o" 022.
A care"ul reading o" 5ection 3/ o" the >edical Act o" 022
discloses that the law uses the word IshallI with respect to
the issuance o" certifcates o" registration. &hus, the
petitioners Ishall sign and issue certifcates o" registration to
those who have satis"actorily complied with the re#uirements
o" the oard.I 6n statutory construction the term IshallI is a
word o" command. 6t is given imperative meaning. &hus, when
an e7aminee satisfes the re#uirements "or the grant o" his
physicians license, the oard is obliged to administer to him
his oath and register him as a physician, pursuant to 5ection
3/ and par. E0F o" 5ection 333 o" the >edical Act o" 022.
;owever, the surrounding circumstances in this case call "or
serious in#uiry concerning the satis"actory compliance with
the oard re#uirements by the respondents. &he unusually
high scores in the two most dicult sub)ects was
phenomenal, according to $r. <ebres, the consultant o" *%C on
the matter, and raised grave doubts about the integrity, i" not
validity, o" the tests. &hese doubts have to be appropriately
resolved.
 &he "unction o" mandamus is not to establish a right but to
en"orce one that has been established by law. 6" no legal right
has been violated, there can be no application o" a legal
remedy, and the writ o" mandamus is a legal remedy "or a
legal right. &here must be a well-defned, clear and certain
legal right to the thing demanded. 6t is long established rule
that a license to practice medicine is a privilege or "ranchise
granted by the government.
6t is true that this Court has upheld the constitutional right o" 
every citi8en to select a pro"ession or course o" study sub)ect
to a "air, reasonable, and e#uitable admission and academic
re#uirements. ut li!e all rights and "reedoms guaranteed by
the Charter, their e7ercise may be so regulated pursuant to
the police power o" the 5tate to sa"eguard health, morals,
peace, education, order, sa"ety, and general wel"are o" the
people. T)us& +rsons .)o dsir #o n(a( in #)
larnd +ro"ssions r9uirin( scin#ic or #c)nical
;no.ld( ,a% ! r9uird #o #a; an :a,ina#ion as
a +rr9uisi# #o n(a(in( in #)ir c)osn carrs/ T)is
r(ula#ion #a;s +ar#icular +r#innc in #) ld o" 
,dicin& #o +ro#c# #) +u!lic "ro, #) +o#n#iall%
dadl% c#s o" inco,+#nc and i(noranc a,on(
#)os .)o .ould +rac#ic ,dicin/ 6n a previous case, it
may be recalled, this Court has ordered the oard o" >edical
G7aminers to annul both its resolution and certifcate
authori8ing a 5panish sub)ect, with the degree o" Licentiate in
>edicine and 5urgery "rom the Bniversity o" arcelona, 5pain,
to practice medicine in the *hilippines, without frst passing
the e7amination re#uired by the *hilippine >edical Act. 6n
another case worth noting, we upheld the power o" the 5tate
to upgrade the selection o" applicants into medical schools
through admission tests.
6n the present case, the a"orementioned guidelines are
provided "or in %ep. Act <o. 33, as amended, which
1
 prescribes the re#uirements "or admission to the practice o"  or activity without prescribing defnite rules and conditions "or
medicine, the #ualifcations o" candidates "or the board
e7aminations, the scope and conduct o" the e7aminations, the
grounds "or denying the issuance o" a physicians license, or
revo!ing a license that has been issued. Herily, to be granted
the privilege to practice medicine, the applicant must show
that he possesses all the #ualifcations and none o" the
dis#ualifcations. $urthermore, it must appear that he has "ully
complied with all the conditions and re#uirements imposed by
the law and the licensing authority. 5hould doubt taint or mar
the compliance as being less than satis"actory, then the
privilege will not issue. $or said privilege is distinguishable
"rom a matter o" right, which may be demanded i" denied.
 &hus, without a defnite showing that the a"oresaid
re#uirements and conditions have been satis"actorily met, the
courts may not grant the writ o" mandamus to secure said
privilege without thwarting the legislative will.
*OARD OF MEDICINE& DR/ RAUL FLORES  Enow D%. (?5G 5.
%A>6%GNF, in his capacity as Chairman o" the oard,
*%?$G556?<AL %G@BLA&6?< C?>>6556?<, through its
Chairman, ;G%>?@G<G5 *?%G Enow D%. ALCG5&65 >.
@B6A<@F, *etitioners, vs. YASUYUKI OTA , %espondent.
G.R. No. 166097 | July 14, 2008 (3D)
$acts: asuyu!i ?ta ErespondentF is a (apanese national,
married to a $ilipina, who has continuously resided in the
*hilippines "or more than 0/ years. ;e graduated "rom icol
Christian College o" >edicine on April 30, 0220 with a degree
o" Doctor o" >edicine. A"ter success"ully completing a one-
year post graduate internship training at the (ose %eyes
>emorial >edical Center, he fled an application to ta!e the
medical board e7aminations in order to obtain a medical
license. ;e was re#uired by the *ro"essional %egulation
Commission E*%CF to submit an adavit o" underta!ing,
stating among others that should he success"ully pass the
same, he would not practice medicine until he submits proo" 
that reciprocity e7ists between (apan and the *hilippines in
admitting "oreigners into the practice o" medicine.
the guidance o" said ocials in the e7ercise o" their power.
%.A. <o. 33, which provides who may be candidates "or the
medical board e7aminations, merely re#uires a "oreign citi8en
to submit competent and conclusive documentary evidence,
confrmed by the Department o" $oreign A4airs ED$AF,
showing that his countrys e7isting laws permit citi8ens o" the
*hilippines to practice medicine under the same rules and
regulations governing citi8ens thereo".
<owhere in said statutes is it stated that the "oreign applicant
must show that the conditions "or the practice o" medicine in
said country are practical and attainable by $ilipinos. <either
is it stated that it must frst be proven that a $ilipino has been
granted license and allowed to practice his pro"ession in said
country be"ore a "oreign applicant may be given license to
practice in the *hilippines.
'hile it is true that respondent "ailed to give details as to the
conditions stated in the >edical *ractitioners Law o" (apan --
i.e., the provisions o" the 5chool Gducations Laws, the criteria
o" the >inister o" ;ealth and 'el"are o" (apan in determining
whether the academic and technical capability o" "oreign
medical graduates are the same as or better than that o" 
graduates o" medical schools in (apan, and who can actually
#uali"y to ta!e the preparatory test "or the <ational >edical
G7amination = respondent, however, presented proo" that
"oreigners are actually practicing in (apan and that $ilipinos
are not precluded "rom getting a license to practice there.

%espondent submitted a duly notari8ed Gnglish translation o" 

the >edical *ractitioners Law o" (apan duly authenticated by
the Consul @eneral o" the *hilippine Gmbassy to (apan, (esus 6.
 abes thus, he was allowed to ta!e the >edical oard
G7aminations in August 0223, which he subse#uently passed.

6n spite o" all these, the oard o" >edicine EoardF o" the *%C
denied respondent9s re#uest "or a license to practice medicine
in the *hilippines on the ground that the oard Ibelieves that
no genuine reciprocity can be "ound in the law o" (apan as
there is no $ilipino or "oreigner who can possibly practice
there.I

6ssue: 'hether or not the oard erred in not issuing the

license o" respondent to practice medicine in the *hilippines
;eld: es
 &here is no #uestion that a license to practice medicine is a
privilege or "ranchise granted by the government. 6t is a right
that is earned through years o" education and training, and
which re#uires that one must frst secure a license "rom the
state through pro"essional board e7aminations.
6t must be stressed however that the power to regulate the
e7ercise o" a pro"ession or pursuit o" an occupation cannot be
e7ercised by the 5tate or its agents in an arbitrary, despotic,
or oppressive manner. A political body which regulates the
e7ercise o" a particular privilege has the authority to both
"orbid and grant such privilege in accordance with certain
conditions. As the legislature cannot validly bestow an
arbitrary power to grant or re"use a license on a public agency
or ocer, courts will generally stri!e down license legislation
that vests in public ocials discretion to grant or re"use a
license to carry on some ordinarily law"ul business, pro"ession,
Cas Di(s# and Rla#d Pro$isions on L(al Mdicin !asd on A##%/ Rodl
Ca+ul0s S%lla!us
Ri$ad& S)rin L/ 1 2 s# S, AY 3425 6 3427 1 Arllano Uni$rsi#% Sc)ool o" La.
SPECIAL LA8S APPLICA*LE TO PHYSICIANS I
THE PEOPLE, %espondent, v.  BOSEPHINE CHAVE>,
Appellant.
"r-!. No. 579. Cour# D-#. Jan. 10, 1947
$acts: &he de"endant was charged with the murder o" her
newborn baby. A )ury "ound her guilty o" manslaughter and
she has appealed "rom the )udgment. An autopsy was
per"ormed by a physician. ;e testifed that the cord on the
baby was about eighteen inches long, untied and depleted o" 
blood that the baby would live until it bled to death.
 &he appellant frst contends that there is no substantial
evidence to support the verdict in that it does not suciently
appear "rom the evidence that this in"ant was born alive and
became a human being that it appears "rom the testimony o" 
another doctor, called by the de"ense, that the doctor
per"orming the autopsy did not use certain tests which might
have been used and did not open the in"ant9s head and heart
which this other doctor thought might disclose some

possibilities and that it "ollows that the #uestion o" whether
this in"ant was born alive and became a human being rests
entirely on pure speculation.
6ssue: 'hether or not the child herein was born alive and
became a human being within the meaning o" the homicide
statutes
;eld: es
 &he evidence is sucient to support a fnding, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that a live child was actually born here, and
that it died because o" the negligence o" the appellant in
"ailing to use reasonable care in protecting its li"e, having the
duty to do so. &his baby was completely removed "rom its
mother and even the placenta was removed. A "actual
#uestion was presented and the opinion o" the autopsy
physician was evidence which could be considered by the )ury.
His o+inion .as #)a# #) !a!% .as !orn ali$ and #)a#
i# !ra#)d and )ad )ar# ac#ion/ H (a$ (ood
rasons "or #)a# o+inion and .)il ) ad,i##d #)a#
#)r could ! a +ossi!l dou!# )is $idnc @us#is
#) in"rnc #)a# #)r .as no $alid (round "or a
rasona!l dou!#/ 8)il ) ad,i##d #)a# ) )ad no#
usd cr#ain #s#s su((s#d !% #) o#)r doc#or )
s#a#d #)a# ) ;n. o" #)s #s#s !u# ) did no#
considr #), ncssar% )r/   'ith respect to the test
most relied upon by the de"ense, it was stated by both
doctors that this test would show only what the autopsy
physician testifed he had discovered by other means. &he
doctor called by the de"ense had not seen the baby9s body
and his testimony was based upon his general laboratory
e7perience. 'hile it may be said that there was some conict
between the testimony o" these two doctors no more than a
conict appears. &he #uestion was one o" "act "or the )ury and,
in our opinion, the evidence is sucient to support its
fndings. 6" it could be said that there might be a possible
doubt with respect to this phase o" the case, it cannot be said
that there was necessarily a reasonable doubt. &he fnding o"  de"endants "or lac! o" legal basis.
the )ury is suciently supported, and the implied fnding that
this was a human being rests on a "actual basis and not upon
speculation.
SPECIAL LA8S APPLICA*LE TO PHYSICIANS II
DR/ FILOTEO A/ ALANO , *etitioner, vs. >ENAIDA MAGUD'
LOGMAO , %espondent.
G.R. No. 175540 | &pr-l 7, 2014 (3D)
$acts:
 %espondent Nenaida >agud-Logmao is the mother o"  "or the removal o" some o" the internal organs to be
deceased Arnelito Logmao. *etitioner Dr. $iloteo
Alano is the G7ecutive Director o" the <ational Widney
6nstitute E<W6F.
 At the <W6, Arnelito, who was brought to the Gast
Avenue >edical Center EGA>CF in Mue8on City by two
sidewal! vendors, who allegedly saw the "ormer "all
"rom the overpass near the $armers >ar!et in
Cubao, Mue8on City, was immediately attended to
and given the necessary medical treatment.
 As he had no relatives around, (enni"er . >isa,
 &ransplant Coordinator, was as!ed to locate his
"amily by enlisting police and media assistance.
  &he ne7t day, Arnelito had been pronounced brain
dead by Dr. Abdias H. A#uino, a neurologist, and by
Dr. Antonio %a"ael, a neurosurgeon and attending
physician o" Arnelito, and that a repeat
electroencephalogram EGG@F was in progress to
confrm the diagnosis o" brain death.
 Bpon learning that Arnelito was a suitable organ
donor and that some <W6 patients awaiting organ
donation had blood and tissue types compatible with
Lugmoso, Dr. ?na in#uired "rom (enni"er >isa
whether the relatives o" Arnelito had been located so
that the necessary consent "or organ donation could
be obtained.
Cas Di(s# and Rla#d Pro$isions on L(al Mdicin !asd on A##%/ Rodl
Ca+ul0s S%lla!us
Ri$ad& S)rin L/ 1 2 s# S, AY 3425 6 3427 1 Arllano Uni$rsi#% Sc)ool o" La.
 As the e7tensive search "or the relatives o" Arnelito
yielded no positive result and time being o" the
essence in the success o" organ transplantation, Dr.
?na re#uested Dr. $iloteo A. Alano, herein petitioner,
to authori8e the removal o" specifc organs "rom the
body o" Arnelito "or transplantation purposes.
 ?n >arch , 02, Dr. Alano issued to Dr. ?na a
>emorandum, which reads as "ollows:
 & o+n y # !-/al r/or, # a- pa#-n# 
- on ar/ 3, 1988 a# 9:10 -n # !orn-n' u #o
/ran-o/rral -n@ury. la !aB /r#a-n #a# your 
Dpar#!n# a r# all raonal or# #o
lo/a# # rla#- or n#%o%B-n o # a-
/a pa#-n#, u/ a appal #rou' # ra-o
an #l--on, a +ll a #rou' pol-/ an o#r 
'orn!n# a'n/- an #a# # N*; E-/o%
$'alF S/#-on a n no#- an - a+ar o #
/a.
; all # ao a n /o!pl- +-#, -n
a//oran/ +-# # pro--on o Rpul-/ &/# No.
349 a a!n an .D. 856, pr!--on anor 
au#or-#y - ry '-n #o # Dpar#!n# o 
Sur'ry #o r#r- an r!o # B-ny,
 pan/ra, l-r an ar# o # a- /a
 pa#-n# an #o #ranplan# # a- or'an #o any 
/o!pa#-l pa#-n# +o !ay -n n o a-
or'an #o l- an ur-.
 Conse#uently, respondent fled with the trial court a
complaint "or damages against several doctors,
including petitioner herein, alleging that they
conspired to remove the organs o" Arnelito while the
latter was still alive and that they concealed his true
identity.
  &he court a #uo rendered )udgment fnding only Dr.
$iloteo Alano liable "or damages to plainti4 and
dismissing the complaint against the other
 CA armed the lower courts decision. ;ence this
petition.
6ssue: 'Q< respondent9s su4erings were brought about by
petitioner9s alleged negligence in granting authori8ation "or
the removal or retrieval o" the internal organs o" respondent9s
son who had been declared brain dead, ma!ing petitioner
liable "or damages
;eld: <o
 *etitioner maintains that when he gave authori8ation
transplanted to other patients, he did so in
accordance with the letter o" the law, %epublic Act
E%.A.F <o. +2, as amended by *residential Decree
E*.D.F K, i.e., giving his subordinates instructions to
e7ert all reasonable e4orts to locate the relatives or
ne7t o" !in o" respondent9s son.
o  &hus, petitioner insists that he should not be
held responsible "or any damage allegedly
su4ered by respondent due to the death o" 
her son and the removal o" her sons
internal organs "or transplant purposes.
  &he appellate court armed the trial court9s fnding
that there was negligence on petitioner9s part when
he "ailed to ensure that reasonable time had elapsed
to locate the relatives o" the deceased be"ore giving
the authori8ation to remove said deceased9s internal
organs "or transplant purposes.
  &he >emorandum dated >arch , 02 issued by
petitioner, stated thus:
A care"ul reading o" the above shows that petitioner
instructed his subordinates to Ima!e certainI that
Iall reasonable e4ortsI are e7erted to locate the
patient9s ne7t o" !in, even enumerating ways in
2
 which to ensure that notices o" the death o" the
patient would reach said relatives. 6t also clearly
stated that permission or authori8ation to retrieve
and remove the internal organs o" the deceased was
being given ?<L 6$ the provisions o" the applicable
law had been complied with.
o 5uch instructions reveal that petitioner
acted prudently by directing his
subordinates to e7haust all reasonable
means o" locating the relatives o" the
deceased. ;e could not have made his
directives any clearer. ;e even specifcally
mentioned that permission is only being
granted 6$ the Department o" 5urgery has
complied with all the re#uirements o" the
law.
o Herily, petitioner could not have been
"aulted "or having "ull confdence in the
ability o" the doctors in the Department o"  aul# #ro, y -#r parn# or a rpon-l !!r o
5urgery to comprehend the instructions,
obeying all his directives, and acting only in
accordance with the re#uirements o" the
law.
 $urthermore, as "ound by the lower courts "rom the
records o" the case, the doctors and personnel o" <W6
disseminated notices o" the death o" respondent9s
son to the media and sought the assistance o" the
appropriate police authorities as early as >arch 3,
02, even be"ore petitioner issued the
>emorandum.
o *rior to per"orming the procedure "or
retrieval o" the deceased9s internal organs,
the doctors concerned also the sought the
opinion and approval o" the >edico-Legal
?cer o" the <6.
  &hus, there can be no cavil that petitioner employed
reasonable means to disseminate notifcations
intended to reach the relatives o" the deceased. &he
only #uestion that remains pertains to the suciency
o" time allowed "or notices to reach the relatives o"  rrr #o ao all  @o-n#ly l-al -n /a #y a-l #o
the deceased.
o 6" respondent "ailed to immediately receive
notice o" her son9s death because the
notices did not properly state the name or
identity o" the deceased, "ault cannot be
laid at petitioner9s door. &he trial and
appellate courts "ound that it was the GA>C,
who had the opportunity to ascertain the
name o" the deceased, who recorded the
wrong in"ormation regarding the deceased9s
identity to <W6. &he <W6 could not have
obtained the in"ormation about his name
"rom the patient, because as "ound by the
lower courts, the deceased was already
unconscious by the time he was brought to
the <W6.
NIEVES ESTARES *ALDOS, substituted by $%A<C65C?
ALD?5 and >A%&6< ALD?5, *etitioners, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS and REYNALDO PILLA>AR a.!.a. %G<ALD?
G5&A%G5 ALD?5, %espondents.
G.R. No. 170645 | July 9, 2010 (2D)
$acts: %eynaldo *illa8ar, alias %eynaldo aldos, was born on
/ ?ctober 02+. ;owever, his birth was not registered in the
oce o" the local civil registrar until roughly K years later or
on 00 $ebruary 02. ;is certifcate o" live birth indicated
<ieves aldos as his mother and artolome aldos as his
"ather. <ieves aldos also appeared as the in"ormant on the
certifcate o" live birth.
?n  >arch 022, <ieves aldos fled in %&C "or cancellation o"  4 da%s "ro, #) #i, o" !ir#)/ An% r+or# o" !ir#)
the late registration o" %eynaldos birth. 5he claimed that
%eynaldo was not really her son.
6ssue: 'hether the late registration o" %eynaldos birth is valid
Cas Di(s# and Rla#d Pro$isions on L(al Mdicin !asd on A##%/ Rodl
Ca+ul0s S%lla!us
Ri$ad& S)rin L/ 1 2 s# S, AY 3425 6 3427 1 Arllano Uni$rsi#% Sc)ool o" La.
;eld: es
*residential Decree <o. K0, otherwise !nown as An Act
%e#uiring the %egistration o" irths and Deaths in the
*hilippines which ?ccurred "rom 0 (anuary 021+ and
 &herea"ter, provides:
S/. 1. R'-#ra#-on o -r#. &ll a- orn -n op-#al,
!a#rn-#y /l-n-/, pr-a# o!, or l+r +-#-n #
 pr-o #ar#-n' ro! January 1, 1974 up #o # a# +n #-
/r /o! /#-, -rrp/#- o # na#-onal-#y,
ra/, /ul#ur, rl-'-on or l- o #-r parn#, +#r #
!o#r - a pr!ann# r-n# or #ran-n# -n # -l-pp-n,
an +o -r# a no# y# n r'-#r !u# 
rpor# or r'-#ra#-on -n # oH/ o # lo/al /--l r'-#rar 
o # pla/ o -r# y # py-/-an, nur, !-+-, -lo#, or 
op-#al or /l-n-/ a!-n-#ra#or +o a##n # -r# or -n
 
# a!-ly or a rla#-, or any pron +o a Bno+l' o 
# -r# o # -n--ual /-l.
> rpor# rrr #o ao all  a//o!pan- +-# an
aHa-# /r--n' # /-r/u!#an/ urroun-n' #
lay r'-#ra#-on. (!pa- uppl-)
S/. 2. r-o o r'-#ra#-on o -r#. > r'-#ra#-on o #
-r# o a- rrr #o -n # pr/-n' /#-on !u# 
on +-#-n -#y (60) ay ro! # a# o /#--#y o #-
/r +-#ou# n or  o any B-n. *a- orn a#r #
/#--#y o #- /r !u#  r'-#r -n # oH/ o 
# lo/al /--l r'-#rar o # pla/ o -r# +-#-n #-r#y (30)
ay a#r -r#, y # a##n-n' py-/-an, nur, !-+-,
-lo# or op-#al or /l-n-/ a!-n-#ra#or or, -n aul# o #
a!, y -#r parn# or a rpon-l !!r o # a!-ly 
or any pron +o a Bno+l' o # -r#.
> parn# or # rpon-l !!r o # a!-ly an #
a##nan# a# -r# or # op-#al or /l-n-/ a!-n-#ra#or 
r'-#r # n+ orn /-l. ; #r +a no a##nan# a# -r#,
or - # /-l +a no# orn -n a op-#al or !a#rn-#y /l-n-/,
#n # parn# or # rpon-l !!r o # a!-ly 
alon all  pr-!ar-ly l-al -n /a o a-lur #o r'-#r #
n+ orn /-l. (!pa- uppl-)
Prsidn#ial Dcr No/ 7723 a,ndd P/D/ No/ 752
!% :#ndin( #) +riod o" r(is#ra#ion u+ #o 2
Dc,!r 2J5/ P/D/ No/ 752& as a,ndd& +ro$idd
"or s+cial r(is#ra#ion .i#)in a s+cid +riod #o
addrss #) +ro!l, o" undr'r(is#ra#ion o" !ir#)s as
.ll as da#)s/ 6t allowed, without fne or "ee o" any !ind,
the late registration o" births and deaths occurring within the
period starting "rom 0 (anuary 021+ up to the date when the
decree became e4ective.
5ince %eynaldo was born on / ?ctober 02+, the late
registration o" his birth is outside o" the coverage o" *.D. <o.
K0, as amended. &he late registration o" %eynaldos birth
"alls under Act <o. 1, otherwise !nown as the Ci$il
R(is#r% La. , which too! e4ect on 31 $ebruary 020. As a
general law, Ac# No/ 5 a++lis #o #) r(is#ra#ion o" 
all !ir#)s& no# o#)r.is co$rd !% P/D/ No/ 752& as
a,ndd& occurrin( "ro, 3 F!ruar% 2J2 on.ards/
Considering that the late registration o" %eynaldos birth too!
place in 02, <ational Census 5tatistics ?ce E<C5?F
Administrative ?rder <o. 0, 5eries o" 02 governs the
implementation o" Act <o. 1 in this case.
Undr NCSO A/O/ No/ 2'& #) !ir#) o" a c)ild s)all !
r(is#rd in #) o-c o" #) local ci$il r(is#rar .i#)in
,ad !%ond #) r(l,n#ar% +riod is considrd
dla%d/ T) local ci$il r(is#rar& u+on rci$in( an
a++lica#ion "or dla%d r(is#ra#ion o" !ir#)& is r9uird
#o +u!licl% +os# "or a# las# #n da%s a no#ic o" #)
0/
+ndin( a++lica#ion "or dla%d r(is#ra#ion/ I" a"#r
#n da%s no on o++oss #) r(is#ra#ion and #) local
ci$il r(is#rar is con$incd !%ond dou!# #)a# #) !ir#)
s)ould ! r(is#rd& ) s)ould r(is#r #) sa,/
%eynaldos certifcate o" live birth, as a duly registered public
document, is presumed to have gone through the process
prescribed by law "or late registration o" birth. 6t was only on 
>arch 022, a"ter the lapse o" ten long years "rom the
approval on 00 $ebruary 02 o" the application "or delayed
registration o" %eynaldos birth, that <ieves registered her
opposition. 5he should have done so within the ten-day period
prescribed by law. %ecords show that no less than <ieves
hersel" in"ormed the local civil registrar o" the birth o"  applications "or change o" frst name is now primarily lodged
%eynaldo. At the time o" her application "or delayed
registration o" birth, <ieves claimed that %eynaldo was her
son. etween the "acts stated in a duly registered public
document and the ip-opping statements o" <ieves, we are
more inclined to stand by the "ormer.
A++lica#ions "or dla%d r(is#ra#ion o" !ir#) (o
#)rou() a ri(orous +rocss/ T) !oo;s ,a;in( u+ #)
ci$il r(is#r ar considrd +u!lic docu,n#s and ar
+ri,a "aci $idnc o" #) #ru#) o" #) "ac#s s#a#d
#)r/ As a +u!lic docu,n#& a r(is#rd cr#ica# o" 
li$ !ir#) n@o%s #) +rsu,+#ion o" $alidi#%/  6t is not "or
%eynaldo to prove the "acts stated in his certifcate o" live
birth, but "or petitioners who are assailing the certifcate to
prove its alleged "alsity. *etitioners miserably "ailed to do so.
 &hus, the trial court and the Court o" Appeals correctly denied
"or lac! o" merit the petition to cancel the late registration o"  sanction a change o" frst name on the ground o" se7
%eynaldos birth.
ROMMEL BACINTO DANTES SILVERIO, petitioner, vs.
REPU*LIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
G.R. No. 174689 | ?/#or 22, 2007 (1D)
$acts: *etitioner %ommel (acinto Dantes 5ilverio fled a
petition "or the change o" his frst name and se7 in his birth
certifcate.
;e "urther alleged that he is a male transse7ual, that is,
Ianatomically male but "eels, thin!s and acts as a "emaleI and
that he had always identifed himsel" with girls since
childhood. $eeling trapped in a mans body, he consulted
several doctors in the Bnited 5tates. ;e underwent
psychological e7amination, hormone treatment and breast
augmentation. ;is attempts to trans"orm himsel" to a
IwomanI culminated on (anuary 31, 3//0 when he underwent
se7 reassignment surgery in ang!o!, &hailand. ;e was
therea"ter e7amined by Dr. >arcelino %eysio-Cru8, (r., a plastic
and reconstruction surgeon in the *hilippines, who issued a
medical certifcate attesting that he EpetitionerF had in "act
undergone the procedure.
6ssue: 'hether or not a person success"ully petition "or a
change o" name and se7 appearing in the birth certifcate to
reect the result o" a se7 reassignment surgery
;eld: <o. A *ersons $irst <ame Cannot e Changed ?n the
@round o" 5e7 %eassignment.
T) S#a# )as an in#rs# in #) na,s !orn !%
indi$iduals and n#i#is "or +ur+oss o" idn#ica#ion/
A c)an( o" na, is a +ri$il(& no# a ri()#/  *etitions "or
change o" name are controlled by statutes. 6n this connection,
Article 1K o" the Civil Code provides:
 &R>. 376. No pron /an /an' - na! or  reconfgure and greatly alter the laws on marriage and "amily
urna! +-#ou# @u-/-al au#or-#y.
 &his Civil Code provision was amended by %A 2/+ EClerical
Grror LawF. 6n particular, 5ection 0 o" %A 2/+ provides:
S">;?N 1. &u#or-#y #o "orr/# "lr-/al or  the %evised *enal Code and the presumption o" survivorship in
>ypo'rap-/al rror an "an' o C-r# Na! or  case o" calamities under %ule 00 o" the %ules o" Court,
Cas Di(s# and Rla#d Pro$isions on L(al Mdicin !asd on A##%/ Rodl
Ca+ul0s S%lla!us
Ri$ad& S)rin L/ 1 2 s# S, AY 3425 6 3427 1 Arllano Uni$rsi#% Sc)ool o" La.
N-/Bna!. I No n#ry -n a /--l r'-#r all 
/an' or /orr/# +-#ou# a @u-/-al orr, /p# 
or /lr-/al or #ypo'rap-/al rror an /an' o r# 
na! or n-/Bna! +-/ /an  /orr/# or 
/an' y # /on/rn /-#y or !un-/-pal /--l
r'-#rar or /onul 'nral -n a//oran/ +-# #
 pro--on o #- &/# an -# -!pl!n#-n' rul an
r'ula#-on.
%A 2/+ now governs the change o" frst name. 6t vests the
power and authority to entertain petitions "or change o" frst
name to the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general
concerned. Bnder the law, there"ore, )urisdiction over
with the a"orementioned administrative ocers. &he intent
and e4ect o" the law is to e7clude the change o" frst name
"rom the coverage o" %ules 0/ EChange o" <ameF and 0/
ECancellation or Correction o" Gntries in the Civil %egistryF o" 
the %ules o" Court, until and unless an administrative petition
"or change o" name is frst fled and subse#uently denied. 6t
li!ewise lays down the corresponding venue, "orm and
procedure. 6n sum, the remedy and the proceedings
regulating change o" frst name are primarily administrative in
nature, not )udicial.
*etitioners basis in praying "or the change o" his frst name
was his se7 reassignment. ;e intended to ma!e his frst name
compatible with the se7 he thought he trans"ormed himsel" 
into through surgery. ;owever, a change o" name does not
alter ones legal capacity or civil status. %A 2/+ does not
reassignment. %ather than avoiding con"usion, changing
petitioners frst name "or his declared purpose may only
create grave complications in the civil registry and the public
interest.
*"or a +rson can l(all% c)an( )is (i$n na,& )
,us# +rsn# +ro+r or rasona!l caus or an%
co,+llin( rason @us#i"%in( suc) c)an(/ In addi#ion&
) ,us# s)o. #)a# ) .ill ! +r@udicd !% #) us o" 
)is #ru and o-cial na,/ In #)is cas& ) "aild #o
s)o.& or $n all(& an% +r@udic #)a# ) ,i()#
sur as a rsul# o" usin( )is #ru and o-cial na,/
6n sum, the petition in the trial court in so "ar as it prayed "or
the change o" petitioners frst name was no# .i#)in #)a#
cour#0s +ri,ar% @urisdic#ion as #) +#i#ion s)ould )a$
!n ld .i#) #) local ci$il r(is#rar concrnd&
assu,in( i# could ! l(all% don/ I# .as an i,+ro+r
r,d% !caus #) +ro+r r,d% .as
ad,inis#ra#i$& #)a# is& #)a# +ro$idd undr RA J4/  6t
was also fled in the wrong venue as the proper venue was in
the ?ce o" the Civil %egistrar o" >anila where his birth
certifcate is !ept. >ore importantly, it had no merit since the
use o" his true and ocial name does not pre)udice him at all.
$or all these reasons, the Court o" Appeals correctly dismissed
petitioners petition in so "ar as the change o" his frst name
was concerned.
 &he changes sought by petitioner will have serious and wide-
ranging legal and public policy conse#uences. $irst, even the
trial court itsel" "ound that the petition was but petitioners
frst step towards his eventual marriage to his male fancX.
;owever, marriage, one o" the most sacred social institutions,
is a special contract o" permanent union between a man and a
woman. ?ne o" its essential re#uisites is the legal capacity o" 
the contracting parties who must be a male and a "emale. &o
grant the changes sought by petitioner will substantially
relations. 6t will allow the union o" a man with another man
who has undergone se7 reassignment Ea male-to-"emale post-
operative transse7ualF. 5econd, there are various laws which
apply particularly to women such as the provisions o" the
Labor Code on employment o" women, certain "elonies under
00
among others. &hese laws underscore the public policy in
relation to women which could be substantially a4ected i"  suggested that there is some middle ground between the
petitioners petition were to be granted.
P#i#ionr REPU*LIC vs/ BENNIFER */ CAGANDAHAN
G.R. No. 166676 | Sp#!r 12, 2008 (2D)
$acts: %espondent (enni"er Cagandahan fled a *etition "or
Correction o" Gntries in irth Certifcate. 6n her petition, she
alleged that she was born on (anuary 0, 020 and was
registered as a "emale in the Certifcate o" Live irth but while
growing up, she developed secondary male characteristics
and was diagnosed to have Congenital Adrenal ;yperplasia
ECA;F which is a condition where persons thus aYicted
possess both male and "emale characteristics. 5he "urther
alleged that she was diagnosed to have clitoral hyperthropy in
her early years and at age si7, underwent an ultrasound
where it was discovered that she has small ovaries. At age
thirteen, tests revealed that her ovarian structures had
minimi8ed, she has stopped growing and she has no breast or
menstrual development. 5he then alleged that "or all interests
and appearances as well as in mind and emotion, she has
become a male person. &hus, she prayed that her birth
certifcate be corrected such that her gender be changed "rom
"emale to male and her frst name be changed "rom (enni"er to
 (e4.
6ssue: 'hether or not respondents petition o" correction o"  indi$idual& li; rs+ondn#& )a$in( rac)d #) a( o"
entries in the birth certifcate o" respondent to change her se7
or gender, "rom "emale to male, on the ground o" her medical
condition !nown as CA;, and her name "rom I(enni"erI to
I(e4,I under %ules 0/ and 0/ o" the %ules o" Court can be
properly granted
;eld: es
Rs+ondn# undis+u#dl% )as CAH/ T)is condi#ion
causs #) arl% or ?ina++ro+ria#? a++aranc o" ,al
c)arac#ris#ics/ A +rson& li; rs+ondn#& .i#) #)is
condi#ion +roducs #oo ,uc) andro(n& a ,al
)or,on/ A newborn who has  chromosomes coupled with
CA; usually has a E0F swollen clitoris with the urethral opening
at the base, an ambiguous genitalia o"ten appearing more
male than "emale E3F normal internal structures o" the "emale
reproductive tract such as the ovaries, uterus and "allopian
tubes as the child grows older, some "eatures start to appear
male, such as deepening o" the voice, "acial hair, and "ailure
to menstruate at puberty. About 0 in 0/,/// to 0,///
children are born with CA;.
CAH is on o" ,an% condi#ions #)a# in$ol$ in#rs:
ana#o,%/ During the twentieth century, medicine adopted
the term Iinterse7ualityI to apply to human beings who
cannot be classifed as either male or "emale. &he term is now
o" widespread use. According to 'i!ipedia, interse7uality Iis
the state o" a living thing o" a gonochoristic species whose se7
chromosomes, genitalia, andQor secondary se7 characteristics
are determined to be neither e7clusively male nor "emale. An
organism with interse7 may have biological characteristics o"  Rs+ondn# is #) on .)o )as #o li$ .i#) )is in#rs:
both male and "emale se7es.I
6nterse7 individuals are treated in di4erent ways by di4erent
cultures. 6n most societies, interse7 individuals have been
e7pected to con"orm to either a male or "emale gender role.
5ince the rise o" modern medical science in 'estern societies,
some interse7 people with ambiguous e7ternal genitalia have
had their genitalia surgically modifed to resemble either male
or "emale genitals. >ore commonly, an interse7 individual is
considered as su4ering "rom a IdisorderI which is almost
always recommended to be treated, whether by surgery
andQor by ta!ing li"etime medication in order to mold the
individual as neatly as possible into the category o" either
male or "emale.
6n deciding this case, we consider the compassionate calls "or
recognition o" the various degrees o" interse7 as variations
Cas Di(s# and Rla#d Pro$isions on L(al Mdicin !asd on A##%/ Rodl
Ca+ul0s S%lla!us
Ri$ad& S)rin L/ 1 2 s# S, AY 3425 6 3427 1 Arllano Uni$rsi#% Sc)ool o" La.
which should not be sub)ect to outright denial. I6t has been
se7es, a Zno-mans land "or those individuals who are neither
truly Zmale nor truly Z"emale.I &he current state o" *hilippine
statutes apparently compels that a person be classifed either
as a male or as a "emale, but this Court is not controlled by
mere appearances when nature itsel" "undamentally negates
such rigid classifcation.
6n the instant case, i" we determine respondent to be a
"emale, then there is no basis "or a change in the birth
certifcate entry "or gender. ut i" we determine, based on
medical testimony and scientifc development showing the
respondent to be other than "emale, then a change in the
sub)ects birth certifcate entry is in order.
iologically, nature endowed respondent with a mi7ed
Eneither consistently and categorically "emale nor consistently
and categorically maleF composition. %espondent has "emale
EF chromosomes. ;owever, respondents body system
naturally produces high levels o" male hormones EandrogenF.
As a result, respondent has ambiguous genitalia and the
phenotypic "eatures o" a male.
Bltimately, we are o" the view that .)r #) +rson is
!iolo(icall% or na#urall% in#rs: #) d#r,inin(
"ac#or in )is (ndr classica#ion .ould ! .)a# #)
 
,a@ori#%& .i#) (ood rason #)in;s o" )is)r s:/
%espondent here thin!s o" himsel" as a male and considering
that his body produces high levels o" male hormones
EandrogenF there is preponderant biological support "or
considering him as being male. S:ual d$lo+,n# in
cass o" in#rs: +rsons ,a;s #) (ndr
classica#ion a# !ir#) inconclusi$/ I# is a# ,a#uri#%
#)a# #) (ndr o" suc) +rsons& li; rs+ondn#& is
:d/
%espondent here has simply let nature ta!e its course and has
not ta!en unnatural steps to arrest or inter"ere with what he
was born with. And accordingly, he has already ordered his li"e
to that o" a male. %espondent could have undergone
treatment and ta!en steps, li!e ta!ing li"elong medication, to
"orce his body into the categorical mold o" a "emale but he did
not. ;e chose not to do so. <ature has instead ta!en its due
course in respondents development to reveal more "ully his
male characteristics.
6n the absence o" a law on the matter, the Court will not
dictate on respondent concerning a matter so innately private
as ones se7uality and li"estyle pre"erences, much less on
whether or not to undergo medical treatment to reverse the
male tendency due to CA;. &he Court will not consider
respondent as having erred in not choosing to undergo
treatment in order to become or remain as a "emale. <either
will the Court "orce respondent to undergo treatment and to
ta!e medication in order to ft the mold o" a "emale, as society
commonly currently !nows this gender o" the human species.
ana#o,%/ To )i, !lon(s #) )u,an ri()# #o #)
+ursui# o" )a++inss and o" )al#)/ T)us& #o )i, s)ould
!lon( #) +ri,ordial c)oic o" .)a# courss o" ac#ion
#o #a; alon( #) +a#) o" )is s:ual d$lo+,n# and
,a#ura#ion/ In #) a!snc o" $idnc #)a#
rs+ondn# is an ?inco,+#n#? and in #) a!snc o" 
$idnc #o s)o. #)a# classi"%in( rs+ondn# as a ,al
.ill )ar, o#)r ,,!rs o" soci#% .)o ar 9uall%
n#i#ld #o +ro#c#ion undr #) la.& #) Cour# a-r,s
as $alid and @us#id #) rs+ondn#0s +osi#ion and )is
+rsonal @ud(,n# o" !in( a ,al/
In so rulin( . do no ,or #)an (i$ rs+c# #o 2 #)
di$rsi#% o" na#ur and 3 )o. an indi$idual dals
.i#) .)a# na#ur )as )andd ou#/ In o#)r .ords& .
rs+c# rs+ondn#0s con(ni#al condi#ion and )is
,a#ur dcision #o ! a ,al/ Li" is alrad% di-cul#
03
"or #) ordinar% +rson/ 8 canno# !u# rs+c# )o. masculine name. Considering the conse#uence that
rs+ondn# dals .i#) )is unordinar% s#a# and #)us respondents change o" name merely recogni8es his pre"erred
)l+ ,a; )is li" asir& considrin( #) uni9u gender, we fnd merit in respondents change o" name. 5uch a
circu,s#ancs in #)is cas/ change will con"orm with the change o" the entry in his birth
certifcate "rom "emale to male.
As "or respondents change o" name under %ule 0/, this
Court has held that a change o" name is not a matter o" right
but o" )udicial discretion, to be e7ercised in the light o" the
reasons adduced and the conse#uences that will "ollow.S3T
 &he trial courts grant o" respondents change o" name "rom
 (enni"er to (e4 implies a change o" a "eminine name to a

Cas Di(s# and Rla#d Pro$isions on L(al Mdicin !asd on A##%/ Rodl 0
Ca+ul0s S%lla!us
Ri$ad& S)rin L/ 1 2 s# S, AY 3425 6 3427 1 Arllano Uni$rsi#% Sc)ool o" La.