LEGAL MEDICINE
and further evidence may be required by the court.
 The branch of medicine that deals with the
application of medical knowledge to legal
problems and proceedings.
Legal medicine is also called FORENSIC MEDICINE.
FORENSIC MEDICINE
 The branch of legal medicine dealing with
the application of medical knowledge to
establish facts in civil or criminal legal
cases, such as an investigation into the
cause and time of a suspicious death. Also
known as FORENSIC PATHOLOGY.
MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE
 The branch of law that deals with the
application of law to the practice of
medicine.
It also deals with:
(1) Organization and regulation of the medical
profession;
(2) The contractual obligation of a physician
or a health practitioner to the patient;
(3) The professional relationship to his or her
colleagues; and,
(4) The duties imposed in the practitioner by
the state.
JURISPRUDENCE
 Latin term juris prudentia, which means
“the study, knowledge, finding the answer
or science of law.”
 Focuses on finding the answer to such
abstract questions as “What is the
meaning of the law? Or in the Philippines,
how did the Supreme Court interpret or
apply the law?”
A.M. No. 19-03-24-SC (JUNE 25, 2019)
REVISED RULES OF COURT RULE 138:
ATTORNEYS AND ADMISSION TO THE BAR
SEC. 5. Additional requirements for other
applicants. - All applicants for admission other than
those referred to in the two preceding sections,
shall before being admitted to the examination,
satisfactorily show that they have regularly studied
law for four years, and successfully completed all
prescribed courses, in law school or university,
officially approved and recognized by the Secretary
of Education. The affidavit of the candidate,
accompanied by a certificate from the university or
school of law, shall be filed as evidence of such facts,
No applicant shall be admitted to the bar
examinations unless he has satisfactorily completed
the following courses in a law school or university
duly recognized by the government: civil law,
commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public
and private international law, political law, labor
and social legislation, medical jurisprudence,
taxation, legal ethics and clinical legal education
program.
CONSITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES ARTICLE 12
SECTION 14
The sustained development of reservoir of national
talents consisting of Filipino scientists,
entrepreneurs, professionals, managers, high-level
technical manpower and skilled workers and
craftsmen in all fields shall be promoted by the
State. The State shall encourage appropriate
technology and regulate its transfer for the national
benefit.
The practice of all professions in the Philippines
shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save in cases
prescribed by law.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 2382
THE MEDICAL ACT OF 1959, AS AMENDED
Article I – Objectives and Implementation
Sec 1. Objectives: To Provide and Govern
1. The standardization and regulation of the
medical education;
2. The examination for registration of
physicians; and,
3. The supervision, control, and regulation of
the practice of medicine in the Philippines.
Sec 2. Enforcing Agencies
 Board of Medical Education (BMEd) under
the Commissioner of Higher Education
(CHED)
 Board of Medical Examiners (BME) under
the Commissioner of Civil Service
Commission (CSC)
Sec 5. Functions of the Board of Medical
Education:
a. To determine and prescribe requirements
for admission into a recognized college of
medicine;
 b. To determine and prescribe requirements
for minimum physical facilities of colleges
of medicine;
c. To determine and prescribe the minimum
number and minimum qualifications of
teaching personnel;
d. To determine and prescribe the minimum
required curriculum leading to the degree
of Doctor of Medicine;
e. To authorize the implementation of
experimental medical curriculum in a
medical school that has exceptional faculty
and instrumental facilities;
f. To accept applications for certification for
admission to a medical school and keep a
register of those issued said certificate;
g. To select, determine and approve
hospitals or some departments of the
hospitals for training; and,
h. To promulgate and prescribe and enforce
the necessary rules and regulations for the
proper implementation of the foregoing
functions.
Sec 6. Minimum Required Course
Students seeking admission to medical course must
have a bachelor's degree in science or arts.
BOME vs. Alfonso
FACTS: The College, a private educational
institution, was founded in 1981 for the avowed
purpose of producing physicians who will
“emancipate Muslim citizens from age-old attitudes
on health.” The, unstable peace and order situation
in Mindanao led to the establishment of the College
in Antipolo, Rizal, which granted it a temporary
permit to operate in the municipality, instead of in
Zamboanga City where the school was first
proposed to be located. It has since adopted
Antipolo as its permanent site and changed its name
to the Rizal College of Medicine.
In 1985, the Department of Education, Culture and
Sports (DECS) and the Board of Medical Education
(BME) authorized the Commission on Medical
Education to conduct a study of all medical schools
in the Philippines. The report of the Commission
showed that the College fell very much short of the
minimum standards set for medical schools. The
team of inspectors recommended the closure of the
school upon the following findings, to wit:
(a) the College was not fulfilling the purpose for
which it had been created because of its
inappropriate location and the absence in its
curriculum of subjects relating to Muslim culture
and welfare;
(b) its lack of university affiliation hindered its
students from obtaining a “balanced humanistic and
scientific” education;
(c) it did not have its philosophy base hospital for
the training of its students in the major clinical
disciplines, as required by the DECS;
(d) more than 60% of the college faculty did not
teach in the College full-time, resulting in shortened
and irregular class hours, subject overloading, and
in general, poor quality teaching.
The school disputed these findings as biased and
discriminatory. Four (4) other surveys were
thereafter made by as many different committees or
teams, at the school’s instance or otherwise, all of
which basically confirmed the results of that first
survey.
In her letter of June 23, 1988, Secretary Quisumbing
informed the Chairman of the College’s Board of
Trustees, Mr. Victor Sumulong, of the decision of the
Board of Medical Education to close the College. Mr.
Sumulong instead proposed a gradual phase-out
starting the school year 1989-1990 in order not to
dislocate the students and staff and to minimize
financial loss. The Board subsequently allowed the
College to continue its operations but only until May
1989, after which it was to be closed, this decision
being “final and unappealable.”
The College appealed the decision to the Office of
the President, imputing grave abuse of discretion to
the Secretary. On February 16, 1989, Executive
Secretary Catalino Macaraig, Jr., finding “no reason
to disturb” the contested decision, affirmed it.
On March 2, 1989, the College went to court. It filed
Civil Case No. 1385 in the court of respondent Judge
Daniel P. Alfonso against Secretary Quisumbing in
her capacity as Secretary of Education, Culture and
Sports, questioning the decision as illegal,
oppressive, arbitrary and discriminatory and
applied for a writ of preliminary injunction to
restrain its implementation. The writ was issued as
prayed for, by order of the respondent Judge dated
May 10, 1989, ruled that the inspection of June 18,
1988 was the principal basis of the closure order,
and on such basis sustained the claim of the College
that the inspection was done in an “arbitrary and
haphazard manner” by a team of inspectors who
had already prejudged the school.
ISSUE: Whether or not the order of injunction
dated May 10, 1989 was issued with grave abuse of
discretion and a restraining order against its
enforcement as well as for the dismissal of the
action may be instituted in the court a quo.
RULING: The petition is hereby granted and the
temporary restraining order issued by the Court is
made permanent. The questioned writ of
preliminary injunction dated May 10, 1989 is set
aside and respondent Judge is ordered to dismiss
Civil Case No. 1385.
Respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in
substituting his judgment for theirs. It is well-
settled doctrine that courts of justice should not
generally interfere with purely administrative and
discretionary functions; that courts have no
supervisory power over the proceedings and
actions of the administrative departments of the
government; involving the exercise of judgment and
findings of facts, because by reason of their special
knowledge and expertise over matters falling under
their jurisdiction, the latter are in a better position
to pass judgment on such matters and in their
findings of facts in that regard are generally
accorded respect, if not finality, by the courts. There
are, to be sure, exceptions to this general rule but
none of them obtains in this case.
NATIONAL MEDICAL ADMISSION TEST (NMAT)
 Is a prerequisite for medical colleges or
school
 An aptitude test which is considered as an
instrument toward upgrading the
selection of applicants for admission into
the medical schools and it is calculated to
improve the quality of medical education
in the country.
 Starting school year 1986-1987 no
applicant shall be issued the requisite
Certificate of Eligibility for Admission or
admitted for enrolment without the
required NMAT
Tabalarin vs. Gutierrez
FACTS: The petitioners sought admission into
colleges or schools of medicine for the school year
1987- 1988. However, the petitioners either did not
take or did not successfully take the National
Medical Admission Test (NMAT) required by the
Board of Medical Education, one of the public
respondents, and administered by the private
respondent, the Center for Educational
Measurement (CEM).
On 5 March 1987, the petitioners filed with the
Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial
Region, a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and
Prohibition with a prayer for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The
petitioners sought to enjoin the Secretary of
Education, Culture and Sports, the Board of Medical
Education and the Center for Educational
Measurement from enforcing Section 5 (a) and (f) of
Republic Act No. 2382, as amended, and MECS
Order No. 52, series of 1985, dated 23 August 1985
and from requiring the taking and passing of the
NMAT as a condition for securing certificates of
eligibility for admission, from proceeding with
accepting applications for taking the NMAT and
from administering the NMAT as scheduled on 26
April 1987 and in the future. After hearing on the
petition for issuance of preliminary injunction, the
trial court denied said petition on 20 April 1987.
The NMAT was conducted and administered as
previously scheduled. Petitioners accordingly filed
this Special Civil Action for certiorari with this
Court to set aside the Order of the respondent judge
denying the petition for issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction.
ISSUE: Whether or not NMAT requirement for
admission to medical colleges contravenes the
Constitutional guarantee for the accessibility of
education to all, and whether such regulation is
invalid and/or unconstitutional.
RULING: Republic Act 2382, as amended by
Republic Acts Nos. 4224 and 5946, known as the
"Medical Act of 1959" defines its basic objectives in
the following manner: Section 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. The
State is not really enjoined to take appropriate steps
to make quality education “accessible to all who
might for any number of reasons wish to enroll in a
professional school but rather merely to make such
education accessible to all who qualify under “fair,
reasonable and equitable admission and academic
requirements.” 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. 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.
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 powers. Similarly, the establishment
of minimum medical educational requirements for
admission to the medical profession, has also been
sustained as a legitimate exercise of the regulatory
authority of the state.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for certiorari is
DISMISSED and the Order of the respondent trial
court denying the petition for a writ of preliminary
injunction is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
DECS vs. San Diego
FACTS: Roberto Rey San Diego is a Zoology
graduate of the University of the East who wanted
to pursue medical studies. However, he had taken
the NMAT for a total of three (3) times already and
failed in each try. When he tried to take the NMAT
the fourth time, his application was denied based on
MECS Order No. 12, s. 1972, which institutionalized
the three-flunk rule, or that any college graduate
who has failed the NMAT for three times is no
longer eligible to take it.
San Diego filed a petition before the RTC of
Valenzuela to challenge the three-flunk rule, saying
that the same was a violation of his academic
freedom and his right to have quality education. In
his amended petition, he said the rule was violative
of due process and equal protection.
Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong of RTC Valenzuela
granted his petition and declared the three-flunk
rule invalid.
Hence, the instant petition by DECS.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the three-flunk rule is a legitimate
exercise of police power. -- YES.
Whether or not the three-flunk rule violates the
constitutional guarantees of academic freedom, due
process, and equal protection? -- NO.
RULING: The NMAT is a constitutionally sanctioned
measure intended to limit the admission to medical
schools only to those who have initially proved
their competence and preparation for a medical
education.
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.
On police power:
Police 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.
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.
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 bad, 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.
On equal protection:
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.
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.
On the right to education:
The right to quality education 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."
The SC held that the three-flunk rule is a valid
exercise of police power. The decision of Judge
Dizon-Capulong is overturned. Having flunked it
three times, San Diego is barred from taking the
NMAT again.
Article III – The Board of Medical Examiners;
Registration of Physicians
PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION (PRC)
- Created by a Presidential Decree
- Regulates and supervises the
practice of professionals through
42 regulatory boards including
the Board of Medicine
- It has the following functions:
 Executive
 Quasi-Judicial
 Quasi-Legislative
BOARD OF MEDICINE
- Board of Medical Examiners
- Under the supervision of the PRC
Sec 8. Prerequisite to the Practice of Medicine
No person shall engage in the practice of medicine
in the Philippines unless he is:
1. At least twenty-one years of age;
2. Has satisfactorily passed the
corresponding Board Examination; and
3. Is a holder of a valid Certificate of
Registration duly issued to him by the
Board of Medical Examiners
Board of Medicine vs. Ota
FACTS: Yasuyuki Ota is a Japanese national,
married to a Filipina, who has continuously resided
in the Philippines for more than 10 years. He
graduated from Bicol Christian College of Medicine
on with a degree of Doctor of Medicine. After
successfully completing a one-year post graduate
internship training at the Jose Reyes Memorial
Medical Center, he filed an application to take the
medical board examinations in order to obtain a
medical license. He was required by the PRC to
submit an affidavit of undertaking, stating among
others that should he successfully pass the same, he
would not practice medicine until he submits proof
that reciprocity exists between Japan and the
Philippines in admitting foreigners into the practice
of medicine.
Respondent submitted a duly notarized English
translation of the Medical Practitioners Law of
Japan duly authenticated by the Consul General of
the Philippine Embassy to Japan, thus, he was
allowed to take the Medical Board Examinations
which he subsequently passed.
In spite of all these, the Board of Medicine of the
PRC, denied respondent's request for a license to
practice medicine in the Philippines on the ground
that the Board believes that no genuine reciprocity
can be found in the law of Japan as there is no
Filipino or foreigner who can possibly practice
there.
ISSUE: WON Ota, a Japanese national, should be
allowed to practice Medicine here in the
Philippines.
RULING: YES. R.A. No. 2382 states that, [T]he
applicant shall submit] competent and conclusive
documentary evidence, confirmed by the DFA,
showing that his country's existing laws permit
citizens of the Philippines to practice the profession
[of medicine] under the [same] rules and
regulations governing citizens thereof. It is not
stated that it must first be proven that a Filipino has
been granted license and allowed to practice his
profession in said country before a foreign applicant
may be given license to practice in the Philippines.
Here, Respondent has satisfactorily complied with
all the requirements.
Sec 17. Rules and regulations
The Board of Medical Examiners, with the approval
of the Commissioner of Civil Service, shall
1. Promulgate such rules and regulations as
may be necessary for the proper conduct
of the examinations,
2. Correction of examination papers, and
3. Registration of physicians.
Sec. 9. Candidates for Board Examinations
1. A citizen of the Philippines or a citizen of
any foreign country who has submitted
competent and conclusive documentary
evidence, confirmed by the DFA, 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. Be of good moral character;
3. Of sound mind;
4. Not have been convicted by a court of
competent jurisdiction of any offense
involving moral turpitude;
 5. A holder of the degree of Doctor of
Medicine or its equivalent conferred by a
college of medicine duly recognized by the
Government; and
6. Must have completed a calendar year of
technical training known as internship.
Marquez vs. BOME
FACTS: The petitioner is a graduate of the Chicago
Medical College, having received the degree of M.D.
from said institution on June 8, of the year 1922.
However, the said college has been classified as a
Class C medical college by the National Medical
State Board of the United States after his
graduation. For this reason the respondents, in
accordance with the regulations of the board now in
effect, have denied the requisite standing to said
institution and excluded petitioner. In the argument
for the petitioner it is admitted that under Act No.
3111, and the regulations now in force, the
petitioner is disqualified to take the examinations;
but it is pointed out that at the time he began and
even when he conducted his course in the Chicago
Medical School, said institution was still recognized
as a reputable medical institution; and the question
submitted is whether the petitioner’s case should be
governed by the law and regulations in force at the
time of his enrollment in and graduation from the
Chicago Medical School, or by those in force at the
time he filed his application for admission, on or
about September 26, 1924. It is submitted for the
petitioner that his case should be governed by the
law and regulations at the time of his graduation. To
hold otherwise, it is insisted, is to make the law
retroactive in effect and to do irreparable damage
to the petitioner, who has pursued his work in the
institution referred to in good faith, believing that
said school had the status necessary to qualify him
from examination. Hence this case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Board of Medical
Examiners may make law with retroactive effect
RULING: Yes, the question whether a medical
institution is “a reputable medical school,” in the
sense intended by the law, is vested in the Board of
Medical Examiners, and although the action taken
by them may conceivably, in isolated cases, result in
hardship, nevertheless the interests of the public
require that the board should be free to exercise its
judgment and discretion without reference to the
effect of the determination of the question in
particular instances. There can in the nature of
things be no vested right in an existing law, which
would preclude its change or repeal. No one who
has commenced preparation in a particular
institution has any inchoate right on account of that
fact. If the law were otherwise upon this point, it
would be impossible for the Board of Medical
Examiners to give effect to the knowledge which
they from time to time acquire as to the standing of
medical schools; and an intending physician, upon
matriculating in a particular college, takes upon
himself the risk of changes that may be made in the
standing of the institution by the board.
OATH TAKING AND CONFERMENT CEREMONIES
- Hippocratic Oath and Administrative Oath
CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION
 Issued by the PRC
 Entitles the physician to practice the
medical profession in the Philippines
 Issued to those who have satisfactorily
complied with the requirements of the
Board of Medicine
Sec. 20. Issuance of Certificates of Registration
The Commissioner of Civil Service, the chairman,
the members and the Secretary of the Board of
Medical Examiners shall sign and issue certificates
of registration to those who have satisfactorily
complied with the requirements of the Board.
Grounds for Refusal of Certificates of
Registration:
1. Convicted by a court of competent
jurisdiction of any criminal offense
involving moral turpitude
2. Has been found guilty of immoral or
dishonorable conduct after the
investigation by the Board of Medical
Examiners,
3. Has been declared to be of unsound mind.
Sec. 22. Administrative investigations
1. In addition to the functions provided for in
the preceding sections, the Board of
Medical Examiners shall perform the
following duties:
2. To administer oath to physicians who
qualified in the examinations;
3. To study the conditions affecting the
practice of medicine in all parts of the
Philippines;
4. To exercise the powers conferred upon it
by this article with the view of maintaining
the ethical and professional standards of
the medical profession,
 5. To subpoena or subpoena duces tecum
witnesses for all purposes required in the
discharge of its duties; and,
6. To promulgate, with the approval of the
Commissioner of Civil Service, such rules
and regulations as it may deem necessary.
PRC vs. De Guzman
FACTS: After the Professional Regulations
Commission (PRC) released the names of successful
examinees in the Medical Licensure Examination,
the Board of Medicine observed that the grades of
the 79 Fatima College of Medicine successful
examinees were unusually and exceptionally high in
the two (2) most difficult subjects of the exam, i.e.,
Biochemistry and Obstetrics and Gynecology.
The Board then issued Resolution No. 19
withholding the registration as physicians of all the
examinees from Fatima College of Medicine. As
noted by PRC’s statistician consultant, Fr. Nebres of
ADMU, compared with other examinees from other
schools, the results of those from Fatima were not
only incredibly high but unusually clustered close to
each other. The NBI Investigation concluded that
the Fatima examinees gained early access to the test
questions.
On July 5, 1993, the respondents-examinees filed a
petition for mandamus before the RTC of Manila to
compel the PRC to give them their licenses to
practice medicine. Meanwhile on July 21, 1993, the
Board of Medicine issued Resolution No. 21
charging the respondents of immorality, dishonest
conduct, fraud and deceit and recommended that
the test results of the Fatima Examinees be nullified.
On December 19, 1994, the RTC of Manila
promulgated its decision ordering the PRC to allow
the respondents to take the physician’s oath and to
register them as physicians. The same was appealed
by the PRC to the Court of Appeals which sustained
the RTC decision. Hence, this petition.
ISSUES:
1. WON it is a ministerial duty for the Board of
Medicine to issue certificates of registration as
physicians under RA 2382
2. WON the respondent-examinees have the right to
be registered as physicians
RULING:
1. 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 physician’s 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 of the Medical Act of 1959.
However, the surrounding circumstances in this
case call for serious inquiry concerning the
satisfactory compliance with the Board
requirements by the respondents.
Section 8 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.” 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.
Hence, until the moral and mental fitness of the
respondents could be ascertained, 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.
2. It is long established rule that a license to practice
medicine is a privilege or franchise granted by the
government. 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. 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 the present case, RA 2382, as amended,
prescribed 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 physician’s 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.
GROUNDS FOR
REPRIMAND/SUSPENSION/REVOCATION OF
CERTIFICATE
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; and,
12. Violation of any provision of the Code of
Ethics as approved by the Philippine
Medical Association.
Refusal of a physician to attend to 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.
*see last page for administrative procedures/rules
RIGHTS OF RESPONDENTS (PHYSICIAN)
1. The respondent physician shall be entitled
to be represented by counsel or be heard
by himself or herself
2. To have a speedy and public hearing
3. To confront and to cross-examine
witnesses against him or her
4. All other rights guaranteed by the
Constitution and provided for in the Rules
of Court
Sect. 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.
Gomez vs. Ventura
FACTS: Gomez has been charged guilty by the
Board of Examiners for violation of the Opium Law
when he prescribed opium to a patient thus forever
revoking the plaintiff’s license to practice medicine
and surgery.
Plaintiff prays for the annulment and setting aside
of the investigation proceedings particularly that of
the Board of Medical Examiners’ Decision which
forever revokes the plaintiff's license to practice
medicine and surgery. Plaintiff also prays that his
status before the investigation be restored and a
medical license the same as what he had prior to the
investigation be issued. The defendants answered
with a general denial and prayed for the dismissal
of the complaint. The Court of First Instance (CFI) of
Manila dismissed the complaint. The counsel for the
plaintiff now contends the following: (a) the charges
against the plaintiff is not valid as the same was
preferred by Assistant Fiscal Alfonso Felix of the
City of Manila, who, according to the plaintiff is not
authorized by law to file charges with the Board of
Medical Examiners, which therefore acquired no
jurisdiction over the matter; (b) section 9 of Act No.
2381 is null and void on the ground of
unconstitutionality, since said section is foreign to
the subject of said Act, in violation of section 3 of
the Jones Law prohibiting the enactment of any bill
embracing more than one subject and providing
that the subject be expressed in the title of the bill;
(c) even granting that section 9 of Act No. 2381 is
valid, it was repealed by Act No. 2493 and later by
section 780 of the Administrative Code; (d) the
judgment appealed from and the denial of the
motion for avoidance and new trial was not
correctly rendered.
ISSUES:
a) Whether or not Fiscal Felix has the personality to
file the administrative action against Gomez before
the Board; and
b) Whether or not section 9 Act No. 2381 has been
repealed
RULING:
a) Yes. Proceedings for revocation of a certificate of
registration shall be begun by filing a written
charge or charges against the accused. These
charges may be preferred by any person or persons,
firm or corporation, or the Board of Medical
Examiners itself may direct its executive officer to
prepare said charges. Said charges shall be filed
with the executive officer of the Board of Medical
Examiners and a copy thereof, together with
written notice of the time and place when they will
be heard and determined, shall be served upon the
accused or his counsel, at least two weeks before
the date actually fixed for said hearing. (Sec. 12, Act
No. 3111.)
The law does not require that the charges be
preferred by a public officer or by any specified
person; it even permits the Board of Medical
Examiners itself to require its executive officer to
prefer said charges.
Wherefore, the fact that the charges were filed by
Assistant Fiscal Alfonso Felix of the City of Manila,
does not deprive the Board of Medical Examiners of
jurisdiction to hear said charges and to take the
proper action according to law.
b) No. Act No. 310 provided that the Board of
medical Examiners could revoke licenses for
"unprofessional conduct," without defining the
term. Act No. 1761 (the Opium Law) provided that
illegally prescribing opium should be cause for
revocation of medical licenses. Clearly, the Opium
Law did not repeal Act No. 310. Act No. 2381 — also
an Opium Law — in its section 9, repeated the
provision as to doctors and dentists. The repetition
did not repeal Act No. 310. Act No. 2493, section 11
(Ad. Code, sec. 780), provided that certificates of
physicians are revocable for "unprofessional
conduct," without defining the phrase. In other
words, so far as revocation of licenses is concerned,
Act No. 2493 is mere reenactment of Act No. 310.
The reenactment of the said portion of Act No. 310
did not repeal section 9 of the Opium Law. If said
section 9 has been repealed, it must be by Act No.
3111, which amends Act No. 2493 (Ad. Code, sec.
780), by an addition after the words
"unprofessional conduct" of the following:
"The words "unprofessional conduct, immoral, or
dishonorable conduct" as used in this chapter shall
be construed to include the following acts: (1)
Procuring, aiding or abetting a criminal abortion;
(2) advertising, either in his own name or in the
name of any other person, firm, association, or
corporation, in any written or printed paper, or
document, of medical business in which untruthful
or improbable promises are made, or being
employed by, or in the service of any person, firm,
association or corporation so advertising, or
advertising in any obscene manner derogatory to
good morals; (3) habitual intemperance or addition
to the use of morphine, opium, cocaine or other
drugs having a similar effect; (4) conviction of a
crime or misdemeanor involving dishonorable
conduct; and (5) willfully betraying a professional
secret."
It cannot be seriously contended that aside from the
five examples specified there can be no other
conduct of a physician deemed "unprofessional"
conduct theretofore deemed grounds for revocation
licenses. The maxim expressio unius est exclussio
alterius should be applied only as a means of
discovering legislative intent and should not be
permitted to defeat the plain indicated purpose of
the Legislature. It does not apply when words are
mentioned by way of example, or to remove doubts.
(See Cyc., 1122.) If, therefore, there exists,
"unprofessional conduct" not specified in the laws,
with more reason does the criminal use of opium
remain a specific cause for revocation of license.