29) Board of Optometry v. Colet (Case Digest)

Board of Optometry (petitioners) vs. Colet (respondents) G.R. No. 122241 July 30, 1996 Facts: a.) Congress passed and enacted a law entitled “An Act Regulating the Practice of Optometry Education, Integrating Optometrists, and for Other Purposes”, which is also known as the Revised Optometry Law of 1995 or R.A. No. 8050. b.) On July 31, 1995, herein private respondents filed a petition for declaratory relief and for prohibition and injunction with a prayer for a temporary restraining order. They provided grounds on their petition alleging that: 1.) there were unauthorized insertion and addition of provisions without the knowledge of the Senate panel thus it derogates the orderly procedure of the legislative process and vitiates the legislative content; 2.) that R.A. No. 8050 violates the principle against undue delegation of legislative power; 3.) that R.A. No. 8050 violates the due process clause of the constitution and; 4.) that R.A No. 8050 violates the guaranty of freedom of speech and press. c.) In the undergoing examination of the petition of the herein respondents, the body of petition revealed the members of the petition which were Anacbedo Optical Co., Inc.; Optometry Practitioner of the Philippines (OPAP); Cenevis Optometrist Association (COA); Association of Christian-Muslim Optometrist (ACMO); and Southern Mindanao Optometrist Association of the Philippines (SMOAP) and being represented by its president. However, the body of petition gave no such details on the juridical personality and the addresses of the associations except for Acebedo Co., Inc. What is listed are the names of the presidents, their profession and home addresses. d.) As for the herein petitioners, they filed an opposition to the application for preliminary injunction and alleged that: 1.) respondents do not possess the requisite right as would entitle them to the relief they sought; 2.) respondents have not shown legal existence or capacity to file a case; 3.) R.A. No. 8050 carries no injurious effect and; 4.) respondents failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionally in favor of R.A. No. 8050. e.) The Regional Trial Court granted the writ of preliminary injunction of the herein respondents and the court is inclined to find prima facie, that the petitioners have legal rights which will be affected by the Revised Optometry Law, and that in its operation, said law is likely to inflict serious and irreparable injury to such legal rights. The herein petitioners then now filed the special action civil action for certiorari

and prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order. Issue: 1.) Whether or not the private respondents have the locus standi to question the constitutionality of R.A. No. 8050. 2.) Whether or not there is an absence of a valid cause of action for either declaratory relief or prohibition. Ruling: 1.) No. The private respondents have no legal standing or capacity to question the constitutionality of the questioned law. The Supreme Court has cited that under Article 44 of the Civil Code, an association is considered a juridical person if the law grants it a personality separate and distinct from that of its members. If it is not to be proven as such, it cannot bring any civil action. In the case at bar, it was founded that the private respondents did not claim that they are juridical identities as they chose to remain silent on the issue of the juridical personality of their “associations”, having completely disregarded Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. Without juridical entity, the private respondents are not considered to be a real party in interest. 2.) The Supreme Court stated that the questioned civil case must be of a failure for the reason of the missing requisites of a special civil action for declaratory relief. The requisites as a special civil action for declaratory relief are as follows: 1.) the existence of a justiciable controversy; 2.) the controversy is between persons whose interests are adverse; 3.) that the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy; and 4.) that the issue invoked is ripe for judicial determination. What is lacking is the first and the fourth requisite. Also, the Court stated that the unbending rule in constitutional law that courts will not assume jurisdiction over a constitutional question unless the following requisites must be first satisfied and these are: 1.) there must be an actual case or controversy involving a conflict or rights susceptible of judicial determination; 2.) the constitutional question must be raised by a proper party; 3.) the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and 4.) the resolution of the constitutional question must be necessary to the resolution of the case. An actual case or controversy means as existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjenctural or anticipatory. It cannot be disputed that there is yet no actual case or controversy involving all or any of the private respondents and all or any of the petitioners on the other, with respect to rights and

obligations under R.A. 8050. The Court concluded that the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion when he issued the writ of preliminary injunction restraining the implementation of R.A. 8050. The Court granted to annul and set aside the writ of preliminary injunction.

Note: Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court- Capacity - Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party, must be averred. A party desiring to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, shall do so by specific denial, which shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader's knowledge. Locus standi- means the right to bring an action, to be heard in court, or to address the Court on a matter before it.