Legal Medicine

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 78164

July 31, 1987

TERESITA TABLARIN, MA, LUZ CIRIACO, MA NIMFA B. ROVIRA, EVANGELINA S. LABAO, in their behalf and in behalf of applicants for admission into the Medical Colleges during the school year 1987-88 and future years who have not taken or successfully hurdled tile National Medical Admission Test (NMAT).petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE ANGELINA S. GUTIERREZ, Presiding Judge of Branch XXXVII of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region with seat at Manila, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY LOURDES QUISUMBING, in her capacity as Chairman of the BOARD OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, and THE CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT (CEM), respondents. FELICIANO, J.: 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. 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. (Underscoring supplied) The statute, among other things, created a Board of Medical Education which is composed of (a) the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports or his duly authorized representative, as Chairman; (b) the Secretary of Health or his duly authorized representative; (c) the Director of Higher Education or his duly authorized representative; (d) the Chairman of the Medical Board or his duly authorized representative; (e) a representative of the Philippine

Medical Association; (f) the Dean of the College of Medicine, University of the Philippines; (g) a representative of the Council of Deans of Philippine Medical Schools; and (h) a representative of the Association of Philippine Medical Colleges, as members. The functions of the Board of Medical Education specified in Section 5 of the statute include the following: (a) To determine and prescribe equirements for admission into a recognized college of medicine; (b) To determine and prescribe requirements for minimum physical facilities of colleges of medicine, to wit: buildings, including hospitals, equipment and supplies, apparatus, instruments, appliances, laboratories, bed capacity for instruction purposes, operating and delivery rooms, facilities for outpatient services, and others, used for didactic and practical instruction in accordance with modern trends; (c) To determine and prescribe the minimum number and minimum qualifications of teaching personnel, including student-teachers ratio; (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. Such an experimental curriculum may prescribe admission and graduation requirements other than those prescribed in this Act; Provided, That only exceptional students shall be enrolled in the experimental curriculum; (f) To accept applications for certification for admission to a medical school and keep a register of those issued said certificate; and to collect from said applicants the amount of twenty-five pesos each which shall accrue to the operating fund of the Board of Medical Education; (g) To select, determine and approve hospitals or some departments of the hospitals for training which comply with the minimum specific physical facilities as provided in subparagraph (b) hereof; and (h) To promulgate and prescribe and enforce the necessary rules and regulations for the proper implementation of the foregoing functions. (Emphasis supplied) Section 7 prescribes certain minimum requirements for applicants to medical schools: Admission requirements. — The medical college may admit any student who has not been convicted by any court of competent jurisdiction of any offense involving moral turpitude and who presents (a) a record of completion of a bachelor's degree in science or arts; (b) a certificate of eligibility for entrance to a medical school from the Board of Medical Education; (c) a certificate of good moral character issued by two former professors in the college of liberal arts; and (d) birth certificate. Nothing in this act shall be construed to inhibit any college of medicine from establishing, in addition to the preceding, other entrance requirements that may be deemed admissible. xxx

xxx

x x x (Emphasis supplied)

MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985, issued by the then Minister of Education, Culture and Sports and dated 23 August 1985, established a uniform admission test called the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) as an additional requirement for issuance of a certificate of eligibility for admission into medical schools of the Philippines, beginning with the school year 1986-1987. This Order goes on to state that: 2. The NMAT, an aptitude test, is considered as an instrument toward upgrading the

selection of applicants for admission into the medical schools and its calculated to improve the quality of medical education in the country. The cutoff score for the successful applicants, based on the scores on the NMAT, shall be determined every year by the Board of Medical Education after consultation with the Association of Philippine Medical Colleges. The NMAT rating of each applicant, together with the other admission requirements as presently called for under existing rules, shall serve as a basis for the issuance of the prescribed certificate of elegibility for admission into the medical colleges. 3. Subject to the prior approval of the Board of Medical Education, each medical college may give other tests for applicants who have been issued a corresponding certificate of eligibility for admission that will yield information on other aspects of the applicant's personality to complement the information derived from the NMAT. xxx

xxx

xxx

8. No applicant shall be issued the requisite Certificate of Eligibility for Admission (CEA), or admitted for enrollment as first year student in any medical college, beginning the school year, 1986-87, without the required NMAT qualification as called for under this Order. (Underscoring supplied) Pursuant to MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985, the private respondent Center conducted NMATs for entrance to medical colleges during the school year 1986-1987. In December 1986 and in April 1987, respondent Center conducted the NMATs for admission to medical colleges during the school year 1987.1988.1avvphi1 Petitioners raise the question of whether or not a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued to enjoin the enforcement of Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act No. 2382, as amended, and MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985, pending resolution of the issue of constitutionality of the assailed statute and administrative order. We regard this issue as entirely peripheral in nature. It scarcely needs documentation that a court would issue a writ of preliminary injunction only when the petitioner assailing a statute or administrative order has made out a case of unconstitutionality strong enough to overcome, in the mind of the judge, the presumption of constitutionality, aside from showing a clear legal right to the remedy sought. The fundamental issue is of course the constitutionality of the statute or order assailed. 1. The petitioners invoke a number of provisions of the 1987 Constitution which are, in their assertion, violated by the continued implementation of Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act 2381, as amended, and MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985. The provisions invoked read as follows: (a) Article 11, Section 11: "The state values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect of human rights. " (b) ArticleII, Section l3: "The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual and social well being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs." (c) Article II, Section 17: "The State shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts, culture and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress and to promote total human liberation and development. " (d) Article XIV, Section l: "The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels and take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all. " (e) Article XIV, Section 5 (3): "Every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of

study, subject to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements." Article II of the 1987 Constitution sets forth in its second half certain "State policies" which the government is enjoined to pursue and promote. The petitioners here have not seriously undertaken to demonstrate to what extent or in what manner the statute and the administrative order they assail collide with the State policies embodied in Sections 11, 13 and 17. They have not, in other words, discharged the burden of proof which lies upon them. This burden is heavy enough where the constitutional provision invoked is relatively specific, rather than abstract, in character and cast in behavioral or operational terms. That burden of proof becomes of necessity heavier where the constitutional provision invoked is cast, as the second portion of Article II is cast, in language descriptive of basic policies, or more precisely, of basic objectives of State policy and therefore highly generalized in tenor. The petitioners have not made their case, even a prima facie case, and we are not compelled to speculate and to imagine how the legislation and regulation impugned as unconstitutional could possibly offend the constitutional provisions pointed to by the petitioners. Turning to Article XIV, Section 1, of the 1987 Constitution, we note that once more petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the statute and regulation they assail in fact clash with that provision. On the contrary we may note-in anticipation of discussion infra — that the statute and the regulation which petitioners attack are in fact designed to promote "quality education" at the level of professional schools. When one reads Section 1 in relation to Section 5 (3) of Article XIV as one must one cannot but note that the latter phrase of Section 1 is not to be read with absolute literalness. 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. " 2. In the trial court, petitioners had made the argument that Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act No. 2382, as amended, offend against the constitutional principle which forbids the undue delegation of legislative power, by failing to establish the necessary standard to be followed by the delegate, the Board of Medical Education. The general principle of nondelegation of legislative power, which both flows from the reinforces the more fundamental rule of the separation and allocation of powers among the three great departments of government,1must be applied with circumspection in respect of statutes which like the Medical Act of 1959, deal with subjects as obviously complex and technical as medical education and the practice of medicine in our present day world. Mr. Justice Laurel stressed this point 47 years ago in Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. vs. The Public Service Commission:2 One thing, however, is apparent in the development of the principle of separation of powers and that is that the maxim of delegatus non potest delegare or delegate potestas non potest delegare, adopted this practice (Delegibus et Consuetudiniis Anglia edited by G.E. Woodbine, Yale University Press, 1922, Vol. 2, p. 167) but which is also recognized in principle in the Roman Law (d. 17.18.3) has been made to adapt itself to the complexities of modern government, giving rise to the adoption, within certain limits of the principle of "subordinate legislation," not only in the United States and England but in practically all modern governments. (People vs. Rosenthal and Osmena [68 Phil. 318, 1939]. Accordingly, with the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulation and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a constantly growing tendency toward the delegation of greater power by the legislature, and toward the approval of the practice by the courts." 3 The standards set for subordinate legislation in the exercise of rule making authority by an

administrative agency like the Board of Medical Education are necessarily broad and highly abstract. As explained by then Mr. Justice Fernando in Edu v. Ericta4 — The standard may be either expressed or implied. If the former, the non-delegation objection is easily met.The standard though does not have to be spelled out specifically. It could be implied from the policy and purpose of the act considered as a whole. In the Reflector Law, clearly the legislative objective is public safety. What is sought to be attained as in Calalang v. Williams is "safe transit upon the roads. 5 We believe and so hold that the necessary standards are set forth in Section 1 of the 1959 Medical Act: "the standardization and regulation of medical education" and in Section 5 (a) and 7 of the same Act, the body of the statute itself, and that these considered together are sufficient compliance with the requirements of the non-delegation principle. 3. The petitioners also urge that the NMAT prescribed in MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985, is an "unfair, unreasonable and inequitable requirement," which results in a denial of due process. Again, petitioners have failed to specify just what factors or features of the NMAT render it "unfair" and "unreasonable" or "inequitable." They appear to suggest that passing the NMAT is an unnecessary requirement when added on top of the admission requirements set out in Section 7 of the Medical Act of 1959, and other admission requirements established by internal regulations of the various medical schools, public or private. Petitioners arguments thus appear to relate to utility and wisdom or desirability of the NMAT requirement. But constitutionality is essentially a question of power or authority: this Court has neither commission or competence to pass upon questions of the desirability or wisdom or utility of legislation or administrative regulation. Those questions must be address to the political departments of the government not to the courts. There is another reason why the petitioners' arguments must fail: the legislative and administrative provisions impugned by them constitute, to the mind of the Court, a valid exercise of the police power of the state. The police power, it is commonplace learning, is the pervasive and non-waivable power and authority of the sovereign to secure and promote an the important interests and needs — in a word, the public order — of the general community.6 An important component of that public order is the health and physical safety and well being of the population, the securing of which no one can deny is a legitimate objective of governmental effort and regulation.7 Perhaps the only issue that needs some consideration is whether there is some reasonable relation between the prescribing of passing the NMAT as a condition for admission to medical school on the one hand, and the securing of the health and safety of the general community, on the other hand. This question is perhaps most usefully approached by recalling that 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.8 That 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, is also well recognized. thus, 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 power.9 Similarly, the establishment of minimum medical educational requirements — i.e., the completion of prescribed courses in a recognized medical school — for admission to the medical profession, has also been sustained as a legitimate exercise of the regulatory authority of the state.10What we have before us in the instant case is closely related: the regulation of access to medical schools. MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985, as noted earlier, articulates the rationale of regulation of this type: the improvement of the professional and technical quality of the graduates of medical schools,

by upgrading the quality of those admitted to the student body of the medical schools. That upgrading is sought by selectivity in the process of admission, selectivity consisting, among other things, of limiting admission to those who exhibit in the required degree the aptitude for medical studies and eventually for medical practice. The need to maintain, and the difficulties of maintaining, high standards in our professional schools in general, and medical schools in particular, in the current stage of our social and economic development, are widely known. We believe that the government is entitled to prescribe an admission test like the NMAT as a means for achieving its stated objective of "upgrading the selection of applicants into [our] medical schools" and of "improv[ing] the quality of medical education in the country." Given the widespread use today of such admission tests in, for instance, medical schools in the United States of America (the Medical College Admission Test [MCAT]11 and quite probably in other countries with far more developed educational resources than our own, and taking into account the failure or inability of the petitioners to even attempt to prove otherwise, we are entitled to hold that the NMAT is reasonably related to the securing of the ultimate end of legislation and regulation in this area. That end, it is useful to recall, is the protection of the public from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance in those who would undertake to treat our bodies and minds for disease or trauma. 4. Petitioners have contended, finally, that MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985, is in conflict with the equal protection clause of the Constitution. More specifically, petitioners assert that that portion of the MECS Order which provides that the cutoff score for the successful applicants, based on the scores on the NMAT, shall be determined every-year by the Board of Medical 11 Education after consultation with the Association of Philippine Medical Colleges. (Emphasis supplied) infringes the requirements of equal protection. They assert, in other words, that students seeking admission during a given school year, e.g., 1987-1988, when subjected to a different cutoff score than that established for an, e.g., earlier school year, are discriminated against and that this renders the MECS Order "arbitrary and capricious." The force of this argument is more apparent than real. Different cutoff scores for different school years may be dictated by differing conditions obtaining during those years. Thus, the appropriate cutoff score for a given year may be a function of such factors as the number of students who have reached the cutoff score established the preceding year; the number of places available in medical schools during the current year; the average score attained during the current year; the level of difficulty of the test given during the current year, and so forth. To establish a permanent and immutable cutoff score regardless of changes in circumstances from year to year, may wen result in an unreasonable rigidity. The above language in MECS Order No. 52, far from being arbitrary or capricious, leaves the Board of Medical Education with the measure of flexibility needed to meet circumstances as they change. We conclude that prescribing the NMAT and requiring certain minimum scores therein as a condition for admission to medical schools in the Philippines, do not constitute an unconstitutional imposition. 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. Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 144681

June 21, 2004

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION (PRC), CHAIRMAN HERMOGENES P. POBRE, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER ARMANDO PASCUAL, BOARD OF MEDICINE, CHAIRMAN RODOLFO P. DE GUZMAN, JOSE S. RAMIREZ, JUANITO B. BILLOTE, RUBEN R. POLICARPIO, EDGARDO T. FERNANDO and RICARDO D. FULGENCIO II, petitioners, vs. ARLENE V. DE GUZMAN, VIOLETA V. MENESES, CELERINA S. NAVARRO, JOSE RAMONCITO P. NAVARRO, ARNEL V. HERRERA and GERALDINE ELIZABETH M. PAGILAGAN, ELNORA R. RAQUENO, MARISSA A. REGODON, LAURA M. SANTOS, KARANGALAN D. SERRANO, DANILO A. VILLAVER, MARIA ROSARIO L. LEONOR, ALICIA S. LIZANO, MARITEL M. ECHIVERRI, BERNADETTE T. MENDOZA, FERNANDO F. MANDAPAT, ALELI A. GOLLAYAN, ELCIN C. ARRIOLA, HERMINIGILDA E. CONEJOS, SALLY B. BUNAGAN, ROGELIO B. ANCHETA, OSCAR H. PADUA, JR., EVELYN D. GRAJO, EVELYN S. ACOSTA, MARGARITA BELINDA L. VICENCIO, VALENTINO P. ARBOLEDA, EVELYN O. RAMOS, ACHILLES J. PERALTA, CORAZON M. CRUZ, LEUVINA P. CHICO, JOSEPH A. JAO, MA. LUISA S. GUTIERREZ, LYDIA C. CHAN, OPHELIA C. HIDALGO, FERNANDO T. CRUZ, MELVIN M. USITA, RAFAEL I. TOLENTINO, GRACE E. UY, CHERYL R. TRIGUERO, MICHAEL L. SERRANO, FEDERICO L. CASTILLO, MELITA J. CAÑEDO, SAMUEL B. BANGOY, BERNARDITA B. SY, GLORIA T. JULARBAL, FREDERICK D. FRANCISCO, CARLOS M. BERNARDO, JR., HUBERT S. NAZARENO, CLARISSA B. BACLIG, DAYMINDA G. BONTUYAN, BERNADETTE H. CABUHAT, NANCY J. CHAVEZ, MARIO D. CUARESMA, ERNESTO L. CUE, EVELYN C. CUNDANGAN, RHONEIL R. DEVERATURDA, DERILEEN D. DORADO, SAIBZUR N. EDDING, VIOLETA C. FELIPE, HERMINIO V. FERNANDEZ, JR., MARIA VICTORIA M. LACSAMANA, NORMA G. LAFAVILLA, RUBY B. LANTIN, MA. ELOISA Q. MALLARI, CLARISA SJ. NICOLAS, PERCIVAL H. PANGILINAN, ARNULFO A. SALVADOR, ROBERT B. SANCHEZ, MERLY D. STA. ANA and YOLANDA P. UNICA, respondents. DECISION TINGA, J.: This petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure seeks to nullify the D E C I S I O N,1dated May 16, 2000, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283. The appellate court affirmed the judgment2 dated December 19, 1994, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 52, in Civil Case No. 93-66530. The trial court allowed the respondents to take their physician’s oath and to register as duly licensed physicians. Equally challenged is the R E S O L U T I O N3 promulgated on August 25, 2000 of the Court of Appeals, denying petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration. The facts of this case are as follows: The respondents are all graduates of the Fatima College of Medicine, Valenzuela City,

Metro Manila. They passed the Physician Licensure Examination conducted in February 1993 by the Board of Medicine (Board). Petitioner Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) then released their names as successful examinees in the medical licensure examination. Shortly thereafter, the Board observed that the grades of the seventy-nine successful examinees from Fatima College in the two most difficult subjects in the medical licensure exam, Biochemistry (Bio-Chem) and Obstetrics and Gynecology (OB-Gyne), were unusually and exceptionally high. Eleven Fatima examinees scored 100% in Bio-Chem and ten got 100% in OB-Gyne, another eleven got 99% in Bio-Chem, and twenty-one scored 99% in OBGyne. The Board also observed that many of those who passed from Fatima got marks of 95% or better in both subjects, and no one got a mark lower than 90%. A comparison of the performances of the candidates from other schools was made. The Board observed that strangely, the unusually high ratings were true only for Fatima College examinees. It was a record-breaking phenomenon in the history of the Physician Licensure Examination. On June 7, 1993, the Board issued Resolution No. 19, withholding the registration as physicians of all the examinees from the Fatima College of Medicine.4 The PRC asked the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to investigate whether any anomaly or irregularity marred the February 1993 Physician Licensure Examination. Prior to the NBI investigation, the Board requested Fr. Bienvenido F. Nebres, S.J., an expert mathematician and authority in statistics, and later president of the Ateneo de Manila University, to conduct a statistical analysis of the results in Bio-Chem and Ob-Gyne of the said examination. On June 10, 1993, Fr. Nebres submitted his report. He reported that a comparison of the scores in Bio-Chem and Ob-Gyne, of the Fatima College examinees with those of examinees from De La Salle University and Perpetual Help College of Medicine showed that the scores of Fatima College examinees were not only incredibly high but unusually clustered close to each other. He concluded that there must be some unusual reason creating the clustering of scores in the two subjects. It must be a cause "strong enough to eliminate the normal variations that one should expect from the examinees [of Fatima College] in terms of talent, effort, energy, etc."5 For its part, the NBI found that "the questionable passing rate of Fatima examinees in the [1993] Physician Examination leads to the conclusion that the Fatima examinees gained early access to the test questions."6 On July 5, 1993, respondents Arlene V. De Guzman, Violeta V. Meneses, Celerina S. Navarro, Jose Ramoncito P. Navarro, Arnel V. Herrera, and Geraldine Elizabeth M. Pagilagan (Arlene V. De Guzman et al., for brevity) filed a special civil action for mandamus, with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction docketed as Civil Case No. 93-66530 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 52. Their petition was adopted by the other respondents as intervenors. Meanwhile, the Board issued Resolution No. 26, dated July 21, 1993, charging respondents with "immorality, dishonest conduct, fraud, and deceit" in connection with the Bio-Chem and Ob-Gyne examinations. It recommended that the test results of the Fatima examinees be nullified. The case was docketed as Adm. Case No. 1687 by the PRC. On July 28, 1993, the RTC issued an Order in Civil Case No. 93-66530 granting the preliminary mandatory injunction sought by the respondents. It ordered the petitioners to administer the physician’s oath to Arlene V. De Guzman et al., and enter their names in the

rolls of the PRC. The petitioners then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to set aside the mandatory injunctive writ, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 31701. On October 21, 1993, the appellate court decided CA-G.R. SP No. 31701, with the dispositive portion of theDecision ordaining as follows: WHEREFORE, this petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issued by the lower court against petitioners is hereby nullified and set aside. SO ORDERED.7 Arlene V. de Guzman, et al., then elevated the foregoing Decision to this Court in G.R. No. 112315. In ourResolution dated May 23, 1994, we denied the petition for failure to show reversible error on the part of the appellate court. Meanwhile, on November 22, 1993, during the pendency of the instant petition, the pre-trial conference in Civil Case No. 93-66530 was held. Then, the parties, agreed to reduce the testimonies of their respective witnesses to sworn questions-and-answers. This was without prejudice to cross-examination by the opposing counsel. On December 13, 1993, petitioners’ counsel failed to appear at the trial in the mistaken belief that the trial was set for December 15. The trial court then ruled that petitioners waived their right to cross-examine the witnesses. On January 27, 1994, counsel for petitioners filed a Manifestation and Motion stating the reasons for her non-appearance and praying that the cross-examination of the witnesses for the opposing parties be reset. The trial court denied the motion for lack of notice to adverse counsel. It also denied the Motion for Reconsideration that followed on the ground that adverse counsel was notified less than three (3) days prior to the hearing. Meanwhile, to prevent the PRC and the Board from proceeding with Adm. Case No. 1687, the respondents herein moved for the issuance of a restraining order, which the lower court granted in its Order dated April 4, 1994. The petitioners then filed with this Court a petition for certiorari docketed as G.R. No. 115704, to annul the Ordersof the trial court dated November 13, 1993, February 28, 1994, and April 4, 1994. We referred the petition to the Court of Appeals where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 34506. On August 31, 1994, the appellate court decided CA-G.R. SP No. 34506 as follows: WHEREFORE, the present petition for certiorari with prayer for temporary restraining order/ preliminary injunction is GRANTED and the Orders of December 13, 1993, February 7, 1994, February 28, 1994, and April 4, 1994 of the RTC-Manila, Branch 52, and all further proceedings taken by it in Special Civil Action No. 93-66530 are hereby DECLARED NULL and VOID. The said RTC-Manila is ordered to allow petitioners’ counsel to cross-examine the respondents’ witnesses, to allow petitioners to present their evidence in due course of trial, and thereafter to decide the case on the merits on the basis of the evidence of the parties. Costs against respondents. IT IS SO ORDERED.8 The trial was then set and notices were sent to the parties. A day before the first hearing, on September 22, 1994, the petitioners filed an Urgent Ex-

Parte Manifestation and Motion praying for the partial reconsideration of the appellate court’s decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 34506, and for the outright dismissal of Civil Case No. 93-66530. The petitioners asked for the suspension of the proceedings. In its Order dated September 23, 1994, the trial court granted the aforesaid motion, cancelled the scheduled hearing dates, and reset the proceedings to October 21 and 28, 1994. Meanwhile, on October 25, 1994, the Court of Appeals denied the partial motion for reconsideration in CA-G.R. SP No. 34506. Thus, petitioners filed with the Supreme Court a petition for review docketed as G.R. No. 117817, entitled Professional Regulation Commission, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al. On November 11, 1994, counsel for the petitioners failed to appear at the trial of Civil Case No. 93-66530. Upon motion of the respondents herein, the trial court ruled that herein petitioners waived their right to cross-examine the herein respondents. Trial was reset to November 28, 1994. On November 25, 1994, petitioners’ counsel moved for the inhibition of the trial court judge for alleged partiality. On November 28, 1994, the day the Motion to Inhibit was to be heard, petitioners failed to appear. Thus, the trial court denied the Motion to Inhibit and declared Civil Case No. 93-66530 deemed submitted for decision. On December 19, 1994, the trial court handed down its judgment in Civil Case No. 93-66530, the fallo of which reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered ordering the respondents to allow the petitioners and intervenors (except those with asterisks and footnotes in pages 1 & 2 of this decision) [sic],9 to take the physician’s oath and to register them as physicians. It should be made clear that this decision is without prejudice to any administrative disciplinary action which may be taken against any of the petitioners for such causes and in the manner provided by law and consistent with the requirements of the Constitution as any other professionals. No costs. SO ORDERED.10 As a result of these developments, petitioners filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari docketed as G.R. No. 118437, entitled Professional Regulation Commission v. Hon. David G. Nitafan, praying inter alia, that (1) G.R. No. 118437 be consolidated with G.R. No. 117817; (2) the decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 31, 1994 in CA-G.R. SP No. 34506 be nullified for its failure to decree the dismissal of Civil Case No. 93-66530, and in the alternative, to set aside the decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. 93-66530, order the trial court judge to inhibit himself, and Civil Case No. 93-66530 be re-raffled to another branch. On December 26, 1994, the petitioners herein filed their Notice of Appeal11 in Civil Case No. 93-66530, thereby elevating the case to the Court of Appeals, where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 37283. In our Resolution of June 7, 1995, G.R. No. 118437 was consolidated with G.R. No. 117817. On July 9, 1998, we disposed of G.R. Nos. 117817 and 118437 in this wise: WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 117817 is DISMISSED for being moot. The petition in G.R. No. 118437 is likewise DISMISSED on the ground that there is a pending appeal

before the Court of Appeals. Assistant Solicitor General Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang is advised to be more circumspect in her dealings with the courts as a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with accordingly. SO ORDERED.12 While CA-G.R. SP No. 37283 was awaiting disposition by the appellate court, Arnel V. Herrera, one of the original petitioners in Civil Case No. 93-66530, joined by twenty-seven intervenors, to wit: Fernando F. Mandapat, Ophelia C. Hidalgo, Bernadette T. Mendoza, Ruby B. Lantin-Tan, Fernando T. Cruz, Marissa A. Regodon, Ma. Eloisa Q. Mallari-Largoza, Cheryl R. Triguero, Joseph A. Jao, Bernadette H. Cabuhat, Evelyn S. Acosta-Cabanes, Laura M. Santos, Maritel M. Echiverri, Bernadette C. Escusa, Carlosito C. Domingo, Alicia S. Lizano, Elnora R. Raqueno-Rabaino, Saibzur N. Edding, Derileen D. Dorado-Edding, Robert B. Sanchez, Maria Rosario L. Leonor-Lacandula, Geraldine Elizabeth M. PagilaganPalma, Margarita Belinda L. Vicencio-Gamilla, Herminigilda E. Conejos, Leuvina P. ChicoPaguio, Elcin C. Arriola-Ocampo, and Jose Ramoncito P. Navarro, manifested that they were no longer interested in proceeding with the case and moved for its dismissal. A similar manifestation and motion was later filed by intervenors Mary Jean I. Yeban-Merlan, Michael L. Serrano, Norma G. Lafavilla, Arnulfo A. Salvador, Belinda C. Rabara, Yolanda P. Unica, Dayminda G. Bontuyan, Clarissa B. Baclig, Ma. Luisa S. Gutierrez, Rhoneil R. Deveraturda, Aleli A. Gollayan, Evelyn C. Cundangan, Frederick D. Francisco, Violeta V. Meneses, Melita J. Cañedo, Clarisa SJ. Nicolas, Federico L. Castillo, Karangalan D. Serrano, Danilo A. Villaver, Grace E. Uy, Lydia C. Chan, and Melvin M. Usita. The Court of Appeals ruled that its decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283 would not apply to them. On May 16, 2000, the Court of Appeals decided CA-G.R. SP No. 37283, with the following fallo, to wit: WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, We hereby AFFIRM the same and DISMISS the instant appeal. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.13 In sustaining the trial court’s decision, the appellate court ratiocinated that the respondents complied with all the statutory requirements for admission into the licensure examination for physicians in February 1993. They all passed the said examination. Having fulfilled the requirements of Republic Act No. 2382,14 they should be allowed to take their oaths as physicians and be registered in the rolls of the PRC. Hence, this petition raising the following issues: I WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS HAVE A VALID CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MANDAMUS AGAINST PETITIONERS IN THE LIGHT OF THE RESOLUTION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT IN G.R. NO. 112315 AFFIRMING THE COURT OF APPEALS’ DECISION DECLARING THAT IF EVER THERE IS SOME DOUBT AS TO THE MORAL FITNESS OF EXAMINEES, THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSE TO PRACTICE MEDICINE IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY GRANTED TO THE SUCCESSFUL EXAMINEES. II WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION FOR MANDAMUS COULD PROCEED DESPITE THE PENDENCY OF ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. 1687, WHICH WAS PRECISELY

LODGED TO DETERMINE THE MORAL FITNESS OF RESPONDENTS TO BECOME DOCTORS.15 To our mind, the only issue is: Did the Court of Appeals commit a reversible error of law in sustaining the judgment of the trial court that respondents are entitled to a writ of mandamus? The petitioners submit that a writ of mandamus will not lie in this case. They point out that for a writ of mandamus to issue, the applicant must have a well-defined, clear and certain legal right to the thing demanded and it is the duty of the respondent to perform the act required. Thus, mandamus may be availed of only when the duty sought to be performed is a ministerial and not a discretionary one. The petitioners argue that the appellate court’s decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283 upholding the decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. 93-66530 overlooked its own pronouncement in CA-G.R. SP No. 31701. The Court of Appeals held in CA-G.R. SP No. 31701 that the issuance of a license to engage in the practice of medicine becomes discretionary on the PRC if there exists some doubt that the successful examinee has not fully met the requirements of the law. The petitioners stress that this Court’s Resolution dated May 24, 1994 in G.R. No. 112315 held that there was no showing "that the Court of Appeals had committed any reversible error in rendering the questioned judgment" in CA-G.R. SP No. 31701. The petitioners point out that our Resolution in G.R. No. 112315 has long become final and executory. Respondents counter that having passed the 1993 licensure examinations for physicians, the petitioners have the obligation to administer to them the oath as physicians and to issue their certificates of registration as physicians pursuant to Section 2016 of Rep. Act No. 2382. The Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283, found that respondents complied with all the requirements of Rep. Act No. 2382. Furthermore, respondents were admitted by the Medical Board to the licensure examinations and had passed the same. Hence, pursuant to Section 20 of Rep. Act No. 2382, the petitioners had the obligation to administer their oaths as physicians and register them. Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state or the sovereign, directed to some inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or person requiring the performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty results from the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed, or from operation of law.17 Section 3 of Rule 6518 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure outlines two situations when a writ of mandamus may issue, when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully (1) neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station; or (2) excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the other is entitled. We shall discuss the issues successively. 1. On The Existence of a Duty of the Board of Medicine To Issue Certificates of Registration as Physicians under Rep. Act No. 2382. For mandamus to prosper, there must be a showing that the officer, board, or official concerned, has a clear legal duty, not involving discretion.19 Moreover, there must be statutory authority for the performance of the act,20 and the performance of the duty has been refused.21 Thus, it must be pertinently asked now: Did petitioners have the duty to administer the Hippocratic Oath and register respondents as physicians under the Medical Act of 1959?

As found by the Court of Appeals, on which we agree on the basis of the records: It bears emphasizing herein that petitioner-appellees and intervenor-appellees have fully complied with all the statutory requirements for admission into the licensure examinations for physicians conducted and administered by the respondent-appellants on February 12, 14, 20 and 21, 1993. Stress, too, must be made of the fact that all of them successfully passed the same examinations.22 The crucial query now is whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that petitioners should allow the respondents to take their oaths as physicians and register them, steps which would enable respondents to practice the medical profession23 pursuant to Section 20 of the Medical Act of 1959? The appellate court relied on a single provision, Section 20 of Rep. Act No. 2382, in concluding that the petitioners had the ministerial obligation to administer the Hippocratic Oath to respondents and register them as physicians. But it is a basic rule in statutory construction that each part of a statute should be construed in connection with every other part to produce a harmonious whole, not confining construction to only one section.24 The intent or meaning of the statute should be ascertained from the statute taken as a whole, not from an isolated part of the provision. Accordingly, Section 20, of Rep. Act No. 2382, as amended should be read in conjunction with the other provisions of the Act. Thus, to determine whether the petitioners had the ministerial obligation to administer the Hippocratic Oath to respondents and register them as physicians, recourse must be had to the entirety of the Medical Act of 1959. 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 2225 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. The unusually high scores in the two most difficult subjects was phenomenal, according to Fr. Nebres, the consultant of PRC on the matter, and raised grave doubts about the integrity, if not validity, of the tests. These doubts have to be appropriately resolved. Under the second paragraph of Section 22, the Board is vested with the power to conduct administrative investigations and "disapprove applications for examination or registration," pursuant to the objectives of Rep. Act No. 2382 as outlined in Section 126 thereof. In this case, after the investigation, the Board filed before the PRC, Adm. Case No. 1687 against the respondents to ascertain their moral and mental fitness to practice medicine, as required by Section 927 of Rep. Act No. 2382. In its Decision dated July 1, 1997, the Board ruled: WHEREFORE, the BOARD hereby CANCELS the respondents[’] examination papers in the Physician Licensure Examinations given in February 1993 and further DEBARS them from taking any licensure examination for a period of ONE (1) YEAR from the date of the promulgation of this DECISION. They may, if they so desire, apply for the scheduled examinations for physicians after the lapse of the period imposed by the BOARD.

SO ORDERED.28 Until the moral and mental fitness of the respondents could be ascertained, according to petitioners, 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. The respondents nevertheless argue that under Section 20, the Board shall not issue a certificate of registration only in the following instances: (1) to any candidate who has been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction of any criminal offense involving moral turpitude; (2) or has been found guilty of immoral or dishonorable conduct after the investigation by the Board; or (3) has been declared to be of unsound mind. They aver that none of these circumstances are present in their case. Petitioners reject respondents’ argument. We are informed that in Board Resolution No. 26,29 dated July 21, 1993, the Board resolved to file charges against the examinees from Fatima College of Medicine for "immorality, dishonesty, fraud, and deceit in the ObstetricsGynecology and Biochemistry examinations." It likewise sought to cancel the examination results obtained by the examinees from the Fatima College. Section 830 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."31 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. 2. On the Right Of The Respondents To Be Registered As Physicians The function of mandamus is not to establish a right but to enforce one that has been established by law. If no legal right has been violated, there can be no application of a legal remedy, and the writ of mandamus is a legal remedy for a legal right.32 There must be a well-defined, clear and certain legal right to the thing demanded.33 It is long established rule that a license to practice medicine is a privilege or franchise granted by the government.34 It is true that this Court has upheld the constitutional right35 of every citizen to select a profession or course of study subject to a fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements.36 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.37 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 a previous case, it may be recalled, this Court has ordered the Board of Medical Examiners to annul both its resolution and certificate authorizing a Spanish subject, with the degree of Licentiate in Medicine and Surgery from the University of Barcelona, Spain, to practice medicine in the Philippines, without first passing the examination required by the Philippine Medical Act.38 In another case worth noting, we upheld the power of the State to upgrade the selection of applicants into medical schools

through admission tests.39 It must be stressed, nevertheless, that the power to regulate the exercise of a profession or pursuit of an occupation cannot be exercised by the State or its agents in an arbitrary, despotic, or oppressive manner. A political body that regulates the exercise of a particular privilege has the authority to both forbid and grant such privilege in accordance with certain conditions. Such conditions may not, however, require giving up ones constitutional rights as a condition to acquiring the license.40 Under the view that the legislature cannot validly bestow an arbitrary power to grant or refuse a license on a public agency or officer, courts will generally strike down license legislation that vests in public officials discretion to grant or refuse a license to carry on some ordinarily lawful business, profession, or activity without prescribing definite rules and conditions for the guidance of said officials in the exercise of their power.41 In the present case, the aforementioned guidelines are provided for in Rep. Act No. 2382, as amended, which prescribes 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. 3. On the Ripeness of the Petition for Mandamus Lastly, the petitioners herein contend that the Court of Appeals should have dismissed the petition for mandamus below for being premature. They argue that the administrative remedies had not been exhausted. The records show that this is not the first time that petitioners have sought the dismissal of Civil Case No. 93-66530. This issue was raised in G.R. No. 115704, which petition we referred to the Court of Appeals, where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 34506. On motion for reconsideration in CA-G.R. SP No. 34506, the appellate court denied the motion to dismiss on the ground that the prayers for the nullification of the order of the trial court and the dismissal of Civil Case No. 93-66530 were inconsistent reliefs. In G.R. No. 118437, the petitioners sought to nullify the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 34506 insofar as it did not order the dismissal of Civil Case No. 93-66530. In our consolidated decision, dated July 9, 1998, in G.R. Nos. 117817 & 118437, this Court speaking through Justice Bellosillo opined that: Indeed, the issue as to whether the Court of Appeals erred in not ordering the dismissal of Civil Case No. 93-66530 sought to be resolved in the instant petition has been rendered meaningless by an event taking place prior to the filing of this petition and denial thereof should follow as a logical consequence.42 There is no longer any justiciable controversy so that any declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.43 It should be recalled that in its decision of 19 December 1994 the trial court granted the writ of mandamus prayed for by private respondents, which decision was received by petitioners on 20 December 1994. Three (3) days after, or on 23 December 1994, petitioners filed the instant petition. By then, the remedy available to them was to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals, which they in fact did, by filing a notice of appeal on 26 December 1994.44

The petitioners have shown no cogent reason for us to reverse the aforecited ruling. Nor will their reliance upon the doctrine of the exhaustion of administrative remedies in the instant case advance their cause any. Section 2645 of the Medical Act of 1959 provides for the administrative and judicial remedies that respondents herein can avail to question Resolution No. 26 of the Board of Medicine, namely: (a) appeal the unfavorable judgment to the PRC; (b) should the PRC ruling still be unfavorable, to elevate the matter on appeal to the Office of the President; and (c) should they still be unsatisfied, to ask for a review of the case or to bring the case to court via a special civil action of certiorari. Thus, as a rule, mandamus will not lie when administrative remedies are still available.46 However, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply where, as in this case, a pure question of law is raised.47 On this issue, no reversible error may, thus, be laid at the door of the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283, when it refused to dismiss Civil Case No. 93-66530. As we earlier pointed out, herein respondents Arnel V. Herrera, Fernando F. Mandapat, Ophelia C. Hidalgo, Bernadette T. Mendoza, Ruby B. Lantin-Tan, Fernando T. Cruz, Marissa A. Regodon, Ma. Eloisa Q. Mallari-Largoza, Cheryl R. Triguero, Joseph A. Jao, Bernadette H. Cabuhat, Evelyn S. Acosta-Cabanes, Laura M. Santos, Maritel M. Echiverri, Bernadette C. Escusa, Carlosito C. Domingo, Alicia S. Lizano, Elnora R. Raqueno-Rabaino, Saibzur N. Edding, Derileen D. Dorado-Edding, Robert B. Sanchez, Maria Rosario LeonorLacandula, Geraldine Elizabeth M. Pagilagan-Palma, Margarita Belinda L. VicencioGamilla, Herminigilda E. Conejos, Leuvina P. Chico-Paguio, Elcin C. Arriola-Ocampo, and Jose Ramoncito P. Navarro manifested to the Court of Appeals during the pendency of CAG.R. SP No. 37283, that they were no longer interested in proceeding with the case and moved for its dismissal insofar as they were concerned. A similar manifestation and motion were later filed by intervenors Mary Jean I. Yeban-Merlan, Michael L. Serrano, Norma G. Lafavilla, Arnulfo A. Salvador, Belinda C. Rabarra, Yolanda P. Unica, Dayminda G. Bontuyan, Clarissa B. Baclig, Ma. Luisa S. Gutierrez, Rhoneil R. Deveraturda, Aleli A. Gollayan, Evelyn C. Cundangan, Frederick D. Francisco, Violeta V. Meneses, Melita J. Cañedo, Clarisa SJ. Nicolas, Federico L. Castillo, Karangalan D. Serrano, Danilo A. Villaver, Grace E. Uy, Lydia C. Chan, and Melvin M. Usita. Following these manifestations and motions, the appellate court in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283 decreed that its ruling would not apply to them. Thus, inasmuch as the instant case is a petition for review of the appellate court’s ruling in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283, a decision which is inapplicable to the aforementioned respondents will similarly not apply to them. As to Achilles J. Peralta, Evelyn O. Ramos, Sally B. Bunagan, Rogelio B. Ancheta, Oscar H. Padua, Jr., Evelyn D. Grajo, Valentino P. Arboleda, Carlos M. Bernardo, Jr., Mario D. Cuaresma, Violeta C. Felipe, Percival H. Pangilinan, Corazon M. Cruz and Samuel B. Bangoy, herein decision shall not apply pursuant to the Orders of the trial court in Civil Case No. 93-66530, dropping their names from the suit. Consequently, this Decision is binding only on the remaining respondents, namely: Arlene V. de Guzman, Celerina S. Navarro, Rafael I. Tolentino, Bernardita B. Sy, Gloria T. Jularbal, Hubert S. Nazareno, Nancy J. Chavez, Ernesto L. Cue, Herminio V. Fernandez, Jr., Maria Victoria M. Lacsamana and Merly D. Sta. Ana, as well as the petitioners. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, (1) the assailed decision dated May 16, 2000, of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 37283, which affirmed the judgment dated December 19, 1994, of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 52, in Civil Case No. 93-66530, ordering petitioners to administer the physician’s oath to herein respondents as well as the resolution dated August 25, 2000, of the appellate court, denying the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE; and (2) the writ of mandamus, issued in Civil Case No. 93-66530, and affirmed by the appellate court in CA-

G.R. SP No. 37283 is NULLIFIED AND SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED. Puno, Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 89572 December 21, 1989 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS (DECS) and DIRECTOR OF CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT, petitioners, vs. ROBERTO REY C. SAN DIEGO and JUDGE TERESITA DIZON-CAPULONG, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 172, respondents. Ramon M. Guevara for private respondent.

CRUZ, J.: The issue before us is mediocrity. The question is whether a person who has thrice failed the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) is entitled to take it again. The petitioner contends he may not, under its rule thath) A student shall be allowed only three (3) chances to take the NMAT. After three (3) successive failures, a student shall not be allowed to take the NMAT for the fourth time. The private respondent insists he can, on constitutional grounds. But first the facts. The private respondent is a graduate of the University of the East with a degree of Bachelor of Science in Zoology. The petitioner claims that he took the NMAT three times and flunked it as many times. 1 When he applied to take it again, the petitioner rejected his application on the basis of the aforesaid rule. He then went to the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, to compel his admission to the test. In his original petition for mandamus, he first invoked his constitutional rights to academic freedom and quality education. By agreement of the parties, the private respondent was allowed to take the NMAT scheduled on April 16, 1989, subject to the outcome of his petition. 2 In an amended petition filed with leave of court, he squarely challenged the constitutionality of MECS Order No. 12, Series of 1972, containing the above-cited rule. The additional grounds raised were due process and equal protection. After hearing, the respondent judge rendered a decision on July 4, 1989, declaring the challenged order invalid and granting the petition. Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong held that the petitioner had been deprived of his right to pursue a medical education through an

arbitrary exercise of the police power. 3 We cannot sustain the respondent judge. Her decision must be reversed. In Tablarin v. Gutierrez, 4 this Court upheld the constitutionality of the NMAT as a measure intended to limit the admission to medical schools only to those who have initially proved their competence and preparation for a medical education. Justice Florentino P. Feliciano declared for a unanimous Court: Perhaps the only issue that needs some consideration is whether there is some reasonable relation between the prescribing of passing the NMAT as a condition for admission to medical school on the one hand, and the securing of the health and safety of the general community, on the other hand. This question is perhaps most usefully approached by recalling that the regulation of the pratice of medicine in all its branches has long been recognized as a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public. That 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, is also well recognized. Thus, 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 power. Similarly, the establishment of minimum medical educational requirements-i.e., the completion of prescribed courses in a recognized medical school-for admission to the medical profession, has also been sustained as a legitimate exercise of the regulatory authority of the state. What we have before us in the instant case is closely related: the regulation of access to medical schools. MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985, as noted earlier, articulates the rationale of regulation of this type: the improvement of the professional and technical quality of the graduates of medical schools, by upgrading the quality of those admitted to the student body of the medical schools. That upgrading is sought by selectivity in the process of admission, selectivity consisting, among other things, of limiting admission to those who exhibit in the required degree the aptitude for medical studies and eventually for medical practice. The need to maintain, and the difficulties of maintaining, high standards in our professional schools in general, and medical schools in particular, in the current state of our social and economic development, are widely known. We believe that the government is entitled to prescribe an admission test like the NMAT as a means of achieving its stated objective of "upgrading the selection of applicants into [our] medical schools" and of "improv[ing] the quality of medical education in the country." Given the widespread use today of such admission tests in, for instance, medical schools in the United States of America (the Medical College Admission Test [MCAT] and quite probably, in other countries with far more developed educational resources than our own, and taking into account the failure or inability of the petitioners to even attempt to prove otherwise, we are entitled to hold that the NMAT is reasonably related to the securing of the ultimate end of legislation and regulation in this area. That end, it is useful to recall, is the protection of the public from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance in those who would undertake to treat our bodies and minds for disease or trauma. However, the respondent judge agreed with the petitioner that the said case was not applicable. Her reason was that it upheld only the requirement for the admission test and said nothing about the so-called "three-flunk rule." We see no reason why the rationale in the Tablarin case cannot apply to the case at bar. The issue raised in both cases is the academic preparation of the applicant. This may be gauged at least initially by the admission test and, indeed with more reliability, by the threeflunk rule. The latter cannot be regarded any less valid than the former in the regulation of the medical profession.

There is no need to redefine here the police power of the State. Suffice it to repeat that the 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. 5 In other words, the proper exercise of the police power requires the concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful method. The subject of the challenged regulation is certainly within the ambit of the police power. It is the right and indeed the responsibility of the State to insure that the medical profession is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may unwarily entrust their lives and health. The method employed by the challenged regulation is not irrelevant to the purpose of the law nor is it arbitrary or oppressive. 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. 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 worse, 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. A person cannot insist on being a physician if he will be a menace to his patients. If one who wants to be a lawyer may prove better as a plumber, he should be so advised and adviced. Of course, he may not be forced to be a plumber, but on the other hand he may not force his entry into the bar. By the same token, a student who has demonstrated promise as a pianist cannot be shunted aside to take a course in nursing, however appropriate this career may be for others. The right to quality education invoked by the private respondent 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. 6 The private respondent must yield to the challenged rule and give way to those better prepared. Where even those who have qualified may still not be accommodated in our already crowded medical schools, there is all the more reason to bar those who, like him, have been tested and found wanting. The contention that the challenged rule violates the equal protection clause is not welltaken. 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. There can be no question that 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.

The Court feels that it is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality education as a guarantee of the Constitution: one must show that he is entitled to it because of his preparation and promise. The private respondent has failed the NMAT five times. 7 While his persistence is noteworthy, to say the least, it is certainly misplaced, like a hopeless love. No depreciation is intended or made against the private respondent. It is stressed that a person who does not qualify in the NMAT is not an absolute incompetent unfit for any work or occupation. The only inference is that he is a probably better, not for the medical profession, but for another calling that has not excited his interest. In the former, he may be a bungler or at least lackluster; in the latter, he is more likely to succeed and may even be outstanding. It is for the appropriate calling that he is entitled to quality education for the full harnessing of his potentials and the sharpening of his latent talents toward what may even be a brilliant future. We cannot have a society of square pegs in round holes, of dentists who should never have left the farm and engineers who should have studied banking and teachers who could be better as merchants. It is time indeed that the State took decisive steps to regulate and enrich our system of education by directing the student to the course for which he is best suited as determined by initial tests and evaluations. Otherwise, we may be "swamped with mediocrity," in the words of Justice Holmes, not because we are lacking in intelligence but because we are a nation of misfits. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the respondent court dated January 13, 1989, is REVERSED, with costs against the private respondent. It is so ordered. Fernan, C.J., Narvasa Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. Nos. 89095 & 89555 November 6, 1989 SIXTO P. CRISOSTOMO, petitioner, vs. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, SPOUSES SHOJI YAMADA and MICHIYO YAMADA and SPOUSES TOMOTADA ENATSU and EDITA ENATSU, respondents. Salma Pir T. Rasul, Rosalinda L. Santos and A.E. Dacanay for petitioner. Gonzales, Batiller Law Offices for respondents. Quisumbing, Torres and Evangelista for Spouses Tomotada and Edita Enatsu. Lino M. Patajo for Spouses Shoji and Michiyo Yamada.

GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.: In his petition for certiorari, 1 the petitioner seeks to annul and set aside the en banc resolution dated February 14, 1989 of the Securities and Exchange Commission in SEC EB Case No. 191 and the concurring opinions thereto (Annexes F, G, and H, pp. 39-62, Rollo), as well as its orders dated June 27, 1989 and July 21, 1989 (Annexes M and 0, pp. 83-86, Rollo) directing the corporate secretary of the United Doctors Medical Center, Inc. (hereafter "UDMC") to call a special meeting of the stockholders to elect the officers and directors in the implementation of the SEC's aforementioned en banc resolution of February 14, 1989, which the Court of Appeals affirmed in its decision dated June 8, 1989 in CA-G.R. SP No. 17435, entitled "Sixto Crisostomo, petitioner vs. Securities and Exchange Commission, Spouses Dr. Shoji Yamada and Michiyo Yamada, and Spouses Dr. Tomotada Enatsu and Edita Enatsu, respondents." On August 1, 1989, the Court of Appeals denied Crisostomo's motion for reconsideration of its decision. On August 24, 1989, he filed a petition for review of said decision in this Court (G.R. No. 89555) which was originally assigned to the Third Division, but was later consolidated with G.R. No. 89095. At first blush, the petitions sound like a patriotic defense of the Constitution, but, at bottom they are only an artful scheme to defraud a group of foreign investors who had been persuaded by the officers of UDMC to invest P57 million to save the corporation (its assets as well as those of the Crisostomo's) from imminent foreclosure by the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) to which UDMC was indebted in the sum of P55 million. It is the kind of operation that sullies our collective image as a people and sets back our government's heroic efforts to attract foreign investments to our country. The antecedent facts, culled from the decision of the Court of Appeals, are as follows: Sixto Crisostomo, Felipe Crisostomo (deceased), Veronica Palanca, Juanito Crisostomo, Carlos Crisostomo, Ricardo Alfonso, Regino Crisostomo and Ernesto Crisostomo (known as the Crisostomo group) were the original stockholders of the United Doctors Medical Center (UDMC) which was organized in 1968 with an authorized capital stock of P1,000,000 (later increased to P15,000,000 in 1972). They owned approximately 40% of UDMC's outstanding capital stock, while the 60% majority belonged to the members of the United Medical Staff Association (UMSA), numbering approximately 150 doctors and medical personnel of UDMC. Despite their minority status, the Crisostomo group has managed UDMC from its inception, with Juanito Crisostomo as president, Ricardo Alfonso, Sr. as chairman of the board, Carlos Crisostomo as corporate secretary and Sixto Crisostomo as director and legal counsel. In 1988, UDMC defaulted in paying its loan obligation of approximately P55 million to the DBP. In the last quarter of 1987, UDMC's assets (principally its hospital) and those of the Crisostomos which had been given as collateral to the DBP, faced foreclosure by the Asset Privatization' rust (APT), which had taken over UDMC's loan obligation to the DBP. To stave off the threatened foreclosure, UDMC, through its principal officers, Ricardo Alfonso and Juanito Crisostomo, persuaded the Yamadas and Enatsu (Shoji Yamada and Tomotada Enatsu are Japanese doctors) to invest fresh capital in UDMC. The wife of Tomotada Enatsu, Edita Enatsu, is a Filipina. They invested approximately P57 million in UDMC. The investment was effected by means of: (1) a Stock Purchase Agreement; and (2) an Amended Memorandum of Agreement whereby the group subscribed to 82.09% of the outstanding shares of UDMC. Both transactions were duly authorized by the board of directors and stockholders of UDMC.

They were submitted to, scrutinized by, and, finally, approved by the Board of Investments, the Central Bank of the Philippines, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The elaborate governmental approval process was done openly and with full knowledge of all concerned, including Sixto Crisostomo, the corporate legal counsel. Upon the completion of the governmental approval process, shares of stock, duly signed by UDMC's authorized officers, were issued to the Yamadas and Enatsus. This capital infusion not only saved the assets of the UDMC (especially the hospital) from foreclosure but also freed the Crisostomos from their individual and solidary liabilities as sureties for the DBP loan. As it had been agreed in the Amended Memorandum of Agreement between UDMC and the Japanese group that upon the latter's acquisition of the controlling interest in UDMC, the corporation would be reorganized, a special stockholders' meeting and board of directors' meeting were scheduled to be held on August 20, 1988. However, on the eve of the meetings, i.e., on August 19, 1988, Sixto Crisostomo, supposedly acting for himself, filed SEC Case No. 3420 against Juanito Crisostomo, Ricardo Alfonso, Shoji Yamada, Michiyo Yamada, Tomotada Enatsu and Edita Enatsu, praying, among other things, (1) to stop the holding of the stockholder's and board of directors' meetings; (2) to disqualify the Japanese investors from holding a controlling interest in UDMC and from being elected directors or officers of UDMC; and (3) to annul the Memorandum of Agreement and Stock Purchase Agreement because they allegedly did not express the true agreement of the parties (pp. 194-203, Rollo). Two weeks later, on September 2, 1988, Crisostomo filed Civil Case No. 88-1823 in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila, where he also sought a preliminary injunction and the Identical reliefs prayed for by him in SEC Case No. 3420 (pp. 317-335, Rollo). It was dismissed by the trial court for lack of jurisdiction and is pending appeal in the Court of Appeals where it is docketed as CA-G.R. No. 20285-CV. On September 13, 1988, the hearing officer, Antonio Esteves, granted the application for a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the respondents — ... from holding the special meeting of the stockholders and of the Board of Directors of United Doctors Medical Center, [Inc.] (UDMC) scheduled on August 20, 1988 or any subsequent meetings; from adopting resolutions to elect new directors and appoint new officers; from approving resolutions directly or indirectly affecting the operations, organizational structure, and financial condition of the corporation, ... and from disbursing funds of the said corporation except those ordinary day-to-day expenses pending the final termination of this case. (p. 30, Rollo.) The private respondents' motion for reconsideration of this order was denied by the hearing officer on November 16, 1988. In the same order, he created a management committee to administer UDMC (pp. 32-35, Rollo). The respondents appealed by certiorari to the SEC en banc. On February 14,1989, Commissioner Jose C. Laureta, with whom Commissioners Rosario N. Lopez and Gonzalo T. Santos separately concurred, set aside the preliminary injunction issued by Esteves and the management committee which he created. The dispositive part of the decision reads: Wherefore, premises considered, the instant petition for certiorari is GRANTED and the Commission en banc ORDERS: 1. That the questioned orders of the hearing officer in SEC Case No. 3420 of September 13, 1988 and November 16, 1988, be immediately vacated;

2. That a special stockholders' meeting of UDMC be held for the purpose of allowing the stockholders of record of the corporation to elect a new board of directors, which special meeting is hereby directed to be scheduled within 10 days from receipt of a copy of this resolution by the incumbent corporate secretary or acting corporate secretary of UDMC, and to this end, that such officer be, as he hereby is, directed: (a) to issue a call for such special meeting and serve notice thereof on all stockholders of record of the corporation, in accordance with section 6 of article VII of UDMC's by-laws; and (b) to submit to the Commission, through the Commission Secretary, a written report of his compliance with this particular order of the Commission, not later than 5 days prior to the scheduled date of the proposed UDMC special stockholders' meeting; 3. That upon the election of a new board of directors of UDMC, that such board be, as it hereby is, enjoined to meet as promptly as possible for the purpose of electing a new set of officers of the corporation in order to ensure its proper management; 4. That the hearing officer be, as he hereby is, directed to continue with the proceedings of SEC Case No. 3420, and to do so with all deliberate speed, for the purpose of resolving the alleged violation of certain rights of Sixto Crisostomo, as a stockholder of UDMC particularly, his right to inspect the corporate books and records of UDMC, his preemptive right to subscribe to the P60 million increase in the authorized capital of UDMC, and his appraisal rights; and 5. That the board of directors and officers of UDMC be, as they hereby are, ordered to submit to the Commission, through the Chairman, a written report as to its plans as regards its nursing school, such report to be submitted at least one month prior to the commencement of the school year 1989-1990. SO ORDERED. (pp. 49-50, Rollo.) Sixto Crisostomo sought a review of the SEC's en banc resolution in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 17435). On June 8, 1989, the Court of Appeals dismissed his petition and lifted the temporary restraining order that it had issued against the SEC's resolution (Annex K, pp. 65-81, Rollo). Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration (pp. 418-434, Rollo). The Court of Appeals required the private respondents to comment but it denied the petitioner's motion to reinstate the writ of preliminary injunction (Annex L, p. 82, Rollo), On motion of the private respondents (Annex K, p. 413, Rollo), the SEC en banc issued an order on June 27, 1989 directing the secretary of UDMC to call a special stockholders' meeting to elect a new board of directors and officers of the corporation (Annex F). Petitioner asked the SEC to recall that order on account of his pending motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals. The motion was opposed by the private respondents. On July 21, 1989, the SEC denied petitioner's motion (p. 86, Rollo). Whereupon, he filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for preliminary injunction alleging that the SEC en banc abused its discretion: 1. in setting aside Esteves' orders 2. in allowing the Japanese group to have control of UDMC for it will result in culpable violation of Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which provides that no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals or corporations qualified to acquire or hold land of the public domain, meaning corporations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by Filipino citizens (Sec. 2, Article XII, 1987 Constitution); and 3. in allowing the Japanese investors to own more than 40% of the capital stock of UDMC (which operates a nursing and midwifery school) in violation of Section 4 (2) Article XIV of

the 1987 Constitution which provides that educational institutions ... shall be owned solely by citizens of the Philippines or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens. The public and private respondents, in their comments on the petition, asked that the petition be dismissed and that the petitioner be cited for contempt for forum-shopping. We find no merit in the petition. The first allegation that the SEC en banc erred in reversing the orders of the hearing officer, Esteves, is the same ground raised by the petitioner in CAG.R. No. SP 17435. The issue is frivolous for the authority of the SEC en banc to review, revise, reverse, or affirm orders of its hearing officers is too elementary to warrant any debate. Equally unmeritorious are the second and third grounds of the petition — that the P57 million investment of the Japanese group in UDMC violates the constitutional provisions restricting the transfer or conveyance of private lands (Art. XIII, Sec. 7, 1987 Constitution) and the ownership of educational institutions (Art. XVI, Sec. 14[a], 1987 Constitution), to citizens of the Philippines or corporations at least 60% of the capital of which is owned by Filipino citizens. While 82% of UDMC's capital stock is indeed subscribed by the Japanese group, only 30% (equivalent to 171,721 shares or P17,172.00) is owned by the Japanese citizens, namely, the Yamada spouses and Tomotada Enatsu. 52% is owned by Edita Enatsu, who is a Filipino. Accordingly, in its application for approval/registration of the foreign equity investments of these investors, UDMC declared that 70% of its capital stock is owned by Filipino citizens, including Edita Enatsu. That application was approved by the Central Bank on August 3, 1988 (p. 249, Rollo,). The investments in UDMC of Doctors Yamada and Enatsu do not violate the Constitutional prohibition against foreigners practising a profession in the Philippines (Section 14, Article XII, 1987 Constitution) for they do not practice their profession (medicine) in the Philippines, neither have they applied for a license to do so. They only own shares of stock in a corporation that operates a hospital. No law limits the sale of hospital shares of stock to doctors only. The ownership of such shares does not amount to engaging (illegally,) in the practice of medicine, or, nursing. If it were otherwise, the petitioner's stockholding in UDMC would also be illegal. The SEC's orders dated June 27, 1989 and July 21, 1989 (directing the secretary of UDMC to call a stockholders' meeting, etc.) are not premature, despite the petitioner's then pending motion for reconsideration of the decision of the Court of Appeals. The lifting by the Court of Appeals of its writ of preliminary injunction in CA-G.R. SP No. 17435 cleared the way for the implementation by the SEC's en banc resolution in SEC EB Case No. 191. The SEC need not wait for the Court of Appeals to resolve the petitioner's motion for reconsideration for a judgment decreeing the dissolution of a preliminary injunction is immediately executory. It "shall not be stayed after its rendition and before an appeal is taken or during the pendency of an appeal." (Sec. 4, Rule 39, Rules of Court; Marcelo Steel Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 54 SCRA 89 [1973]; Aguilar vs. Tan, 31 SCRA 205 [1970]; Sitia Teco vs. Ventura, 1 Phil. 497 [1902]; Watson & Co., Ltd. vs. M. Enriquez, I Phil. 480 [1902]). We now address the public and private respondents' separate motions to dismiss the petition and to cite Crisostomo and his counsel for contempt of court for forum-shopping. The records show that Crisostomo had two actions pending in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. SP 17435 and CA-G.R. No. 20285 CV) when he filed the petition for certiorari (G.R. No. 89095) in this Court on July 27, 1989. The case docketed as CA-G.R. No. 20285-CV, is his appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, dismissing his complaint for annulment of the Memorandum of Agreement and the Stock Purchase Agreement between UDMC and the Japanese investors. CA-G.R. No. SP 17435 is his petition for certiorari to review the SEC's en banc resolution upholding those transactions and ordering the holding

of a stockholders meeting to elect the directors of the UDMC, and of a board of directors meeting to elect the officers. Notwithstanding the pendency of those two cases in the Court of Appeals, Crisostomo filed this petition for certiorari 1 and prohibition on July 27, 1989 where he raises the same issues that he raised in the Court of Appeals. The prayer of his petition in CA-G.R. No. SP 17435 reads thus: 3) After hearing on the merits, judgment be rendered: a) Annulling and setting aside the questioned rulings of the respondent COMMISSION 2 for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and b) Making permanent the preliminary injunction issued in this case against the respondents. (p. 241, Rollo.) In his petition for certiorari (G.R. No. 89095), he also prays that — 1. Upon the filing of this petition, a temporary restraining order issue enjoining respondents, their representatives or agents from implementing or executing the SEC opinions (Annexes "F", "G" and "H") and its June 27 and July 21,1989 orders (Annexes "M" and "O") until further orders from the Honorable Court. xxx xxx xxx 3. After notice, this petition be given due course and a writ of preliminary injunction be issued for the same purpose and effect upon such terms and conditions the Honorable Court may impose; and thereafter, judgment be rendered granting the writ prayed for and annulling and setting aside the said opinions rendered by the SEC in their stead, affirming the orders of the Hearing Officer (Annexes "A" and "B"). (pp. 27-28, Rollo.) Additionally, in his petition for review (G.R. No. 89555) he prays this Court to giant "all the reliefs" prayed for by him in CA-G.R. SP No. 17435. Here is a clear case of forum-shopping. There is forum-shopping whenever as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. The principle applies not only with respect to suits filed in the courts but also in connection with litigations commenced in the courts while an administrative proceeding is pending, as in this case, in order to defeat administrative processes and in anticipation of an unfavorable administrative ruling and a favorable court ruling. This is specially so, as in this case, where the court in which the second suit was brought, has no jurisdiction. (Villanueva vs. Adre, G.R. No. 8063, April 27, 1989.) (p. 303, Rollo) Forum-shopping is prohibited by the Interim Rules of Court for it trifles with the courts and abuses their processes (E. Razon, Inc. vs. Phil. Port Authority, 101 SCRA 450). Section 17 of the Interim Rules of Courts provides: 17. Petitions for writs of certiorari, etc., — No petition for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, habeas corpus or quo warranto may be filed in the Intermediate Appellate Court if another similar petition has been filed or is still pending in the Supreme Court. Nor may such petition be filed in the Supreme Court if a similar petition has been filed or is still pending in the Intermediate Appellate Court, unless it be to review the action taken by the Intermediate Appellate Court on the petition filed with it. A violation of this rule shall constitute contempt of court and shall be a cause for the summary dismissal of both petitions, without prejudice to the taking of appropriate action against the counsel or party concerned. (Interim Rules of

Court.) Forum-shopping makes the petitioner subject to disciplinary action and renders his petitions in this Court and in the Court of Appeals dismissible (E. Razon, Inc. vs. Philippine Port Authority, et al., G.R. No. 75197, Resolution dated July 31, 1986; Buan vs. Lopez, Jr., 145 SCRA 34, 38-39; Collado vs. Hernando, L-43886, May 30, 1988). For this reason, if not for their lack of merit, the petitions should be, as they are hereby, dismissed. WHEREFORE, these petitions are dismissed for lack of merit. The temporary restraining order which this Court issued on August 7, 1989 in G.R. No. 89095 is hereby lifted. The Court of Appeals is ordered to immediately dismiss CA-G.R. CV No. 20285. The petitioner and his counsel are censured for engaging in forum-shopping. The petitioner is further ordered to pay double costs in this instance. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-14160

June 30, 1960

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ANUNCIACION VDA. DE GOLEZ, defendant-appellee. Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres and Solicitor Jorge R. Coquia for appellant. Aniceto V. Zezobrado for appellee. REYES, J. B. L., J.: On October 2, 1957, the provincial fiscal of Negros Occidental filed an information in the Court of First Instance of that province charging Anunciacion Vda. de Golez with the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence, as follows: That on or about the period comprised from December 12, 1956 to December 24, 1956, in the municipality of San Carlos, province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, without being duly licensed to practice medicine and with reckless negligence and without taking due precaution, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniosly diagnose, prescribe, and treat one Susana Tam, who had been suffering for sometime with bodily ailment, knowing fully well that she is incompetent and not possessing the necessary technical or scientific knowledge or skill, and as a consequence of such negligence and carelessness and lack of medical skill, said Susana Tam died thereafter. The accused pleaded not guilty to the information. When the case was called for trial, the assistant fiscal made a manifestation that the accused had also been charged with the crime of illegal practice of medicine before another sala of the same court. In view of this manifestation, the trial court motu proprio dismissed the information for being fatally defective, without prejudice to the filing of the proper information against the same accused. The grounds given for the dismissal were the following:

In view of the foregoing manifestation of the Fiscal, the Court finds that the information is fatally defective and, therefore, should be dismissed under Par. (a), Sec. 2 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court inasmuch as the facts charged do not constitute the offense of homicide thru reckless imprudence because illegal practice of medicine is malicious per se, and when the accused practiced medicine without academical preparation and without a license to do so, then she is per se committing a criminal act for which the criminal intent is presumed. Although the crime of homicide thru reckless imprudence can be committed by a duly licensed physician when in the practice of his profession he fails to exercise due care and diligence from which the criminal act arises, this crime cannot be imputed to a person who has no authority to practice this profession, which act is malicious per se. The crime described in Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code results from the performance of a lawful act which was done without exercising the care and diligence that is required by the circumstances, and not from the performance of an unlawful act which is the subject of the information in this case because a quack doctor who practices medicine does so against the law, and, therefore, his act is necessarily malicious and criminal. From the above order, the provincial fiscal appealed to this Court, and, through the Solicitor General, urges that the court below erred in dismissing the information for being fatally defective because the facts charged therein allegedly do not constitute the crime of homicide thru reckless imprudence. We agree with appellant that the order of dismissal is erroneous, in that the crime of illegal practice of medicine is a statutory offense wherein criminal intent is taken for granted, so that a person may be convicted thereof irrespective of his intention and in spite of his having acted in good faith and without malice; i.e., even if he was not motivated by an evil desire to injure or hurt another, but by an honest desire to cure or alleviate the pain of a patient. In fact, as defined by Section 2678 of the Revised Administrative Code (the law then in force), the offense consists in the mere act of practicing medicine in violation of the Medical Law, even if no injury to another, much less death, results from such malpractice. When, therefore, the patient dies, the illegal practitioner should be equally responsible for the death of his patient, an offense independent of and distinct from the illegal practice of medicine. The allegations in the information in this case that the accused acted with reckless negligence in diagnosing, prescribing for, and treating the deceased Susana Tam, knowing that she did not possess the necessary technical knowledge or skill to do so, thus causing her death, sufficiently charge the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence, since ordinary diligence counsels one not to tamper with human life by trying to treat a sick man when he knows that he does not have the special skill, knowledge, and competence to attempt such treatment and cure, and may consequently reasonably foresee harm or injury to the latter, said accused was found guilty and convicted by this Court of physical injuries through imprudence under the old Penal Code (U. S.vs. Feliciano Divino, 12 Phil., 175). However, in view of the error of the lower court in dismissing the information, we cannot sustain this appeal for the reason that it would place the accused in double jeopardy. The present information being valid and sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction, the dismissal thereof by the court after the accused had pleaded not guilty to the charge and without his consent constitutes jeopardy as to bar further proceedings upon the case (U. S vs. Yam Tung Way, 21 Phil., 67; People vs. Hernandez, 94 Phil., 49; 49 Off. Gaz. No. 12, 5342; People vs. Ferrer, 100 Phil., 124; 55 Off. Gaz. [4] 620). The failure of the accused to file a brief and raise the question of double jeopardy in this appeal does not mean that section 2, Rule 118, providing that the People can not appeal if the defendant would be placed in double jeopardy would no longer apply (People vs. Bao, 106 Phil., 243; 56 Off. Gaz. [51] 7768). The unfortunate result in this case could have been avoided if the trial court had proceeded more deliberately, without allowing its judgment to be influenced by preconceived notions or

undue haste in dispatching cases. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, with costs de oficio. Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION

G.R. Nos. 78813-14 November 8, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FARHAD HATANI y ABOLHASSAN, accused-appellant. The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. Nestor I. Madlansacay, counsel de parte for accused-appellant. Nasser A. Marohomsalic, collaborating counsel for accused-appellant.

QUIASON, J.: This is an appeal from the decisions of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 105, Quezon City, convicting appellant in Criminal Cases No. Q-11867 and No. Q-11868. The dispositive portion of the decision in Criminal Case No. Q-11867 reads as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused Farhad Hatani y Abolhassan, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of illegal practice of medicine in violation of R.A. 2382 otherwise known as the Medical Act of 1959 (Secs. 8, 10) penalized by Section 28 thereof with "a fine of not less than one thousand pesos nor more than ten thousand pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, or by imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court; and considering the circumstances of the case and the ignominy caused by him to his two teen-aged, female, then unmarried victims, this Court exercising its discretion granted under said Section 28 of the law, hereby SENTENCES said accused FARHAD HATANI Y ABOLHASSAN to pay a fine of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency AND to suffer imprisonment of five (5) years; and to pay the costs. This Court further recommends that after service of his sentence the accused be deported as undesirable alien (Rollo, p. 35). The dispositive portion of the decision in Criminal Case No. Q-11868 reads as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused, FARHAD HATANI y ABOLHASSAN, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape punishable under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby SENTENCES said accused to suffer life

imprisonment orreclusion perpetua; and to indemnify the complainant, Precila Borja, in the sum of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) and to pay costs (Rollo, p. 41). The information in Criminal Case No. Q-11867 charged appellant with illegal practice of medicine, in violation of R.A. No. 2382, otherwise known as the Medical Act of 1959, committed as follows: That on or about the 6th day of July, 1979, in Quezon City, Philippines the above named accused, knowing fully well that he has not satisfactorily passed the corresponding Board Examination, neither is he a holder of a valid Certificate of Registration duly issued by the Board of Medical Examiners, as in fact he does not even appear to have taken or completed the course leading to a medical degree, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously for compensation, fee and salary, paid to him directly, physically examined Priscila (sic) Borja Y Loquero and Wilma Borja Y Loquero, diagnosed, treated and administer injections on the persons of Prescila (sic) Borja Y Loquero and Wilma Borja Y Loquero, in Violation of Section 10, in relation to Section 28, Republic Act No. 2382 (Records, Vol. I, p. 1). The information in Criminal Case No. Q-11868, charged appellant with Rape, committed as follows: That on or about the 6th day of July, 1979, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, and while she was deprived of reason or unconscious after having been drugged or administered medicine, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with the undersigned PRECILA BORJA Y LOQUERO without her consent and against her will, to her damage and prejudice in such amount as may be awarded under the provisions of the Civil Code (Records, Vol. II, p. 1). It appears that in the morning of July 6, 1979, Agustina Borja visited her comadre, Maura Fontreras, and requested malunggay leaves as medication for her 16-year old daughter, Precila, who had high fever and loose bowel movement. Upon learning that Precila was sick, Marita, Maura's daughter, introduced Agustina to her husband, appellant herein, whom she said was a medical doctor. Marita suggested that her husband treat Precila and Agustina agreed. Appellant and Marita went to the Borja residence, where he examined Precila. He gave her tablets to take and administered two injections (to her), one in the morning and the second at noon. After each injection, Precila would feel dizzy and fall asleep. It was appellant's diagnosis that Precila was a drug addict and required further observation and treatment. Appellant offered to attend to Precila at his house and again, Agustina agreed in the belief that her daughter was a drug addict. In the evening of the same day, Precila was fetched by appellant and Marita and was brought to appellant's house. Again, Precila was given an injection which caused her to sleep. When she awoke, she realized that she was naked and her entire body was in pain. Appellant was seated on the bed and was fondling her private parts. Shocked, Precila called for her mother and tried to get up. Appellant, however, punched her on the chest and forced her to lie down. He pressed a pillow on her face and injected her again, causing her to fall asleep. When Precila awoke the second time, she found appellant in bed with her. He was naked and fondling her private parts. The pain all over her body lingered. When Precila touched her private parts, she saw blood stains on her hand. She tried to stand up but she was too weak. Appellant gave her another injection rendering her unconscious. The following morning, Agustina went to fetch Precila. Upon reaching the Fontreras'

residence, she went straight to the bedroom, where, to her great dismay, she found Precila and appellant both asleep and naked. She hurriedly dressed up Precila and brought her home. When Precila woke up, she noticed she was already home and her mother was crying. Precila remained dizzy, with throbbing pains all over her body. When talked to, she was incoherent. That evening, Precila's oldest sister, Josefina, a nurse by profession, came home and saw Precila looking very weak. Her mother, who was crying narrated what she had witnessed that morning. She also told Josefina that appellant was in the other bedroom, treating another sister, Wilma whom he also diagnosed as a drug addict. Josefina immediately proceeded to the bedroom and saw appellant about to inject Wilma. Josefina saw the open bag of appellant, which contained empty capsules of dalmane and empty vials of valium. She inquired on the need of the injection and appellant replied that a second shot of plain distilled water was required to cure Wilma of her drug addiction. Josefina told appellant to stop but he persisted. Only upon threat that she would call the police did appellant stop. Appellant and his wife then left the Borja residence. The following day, Agustina and Josefina brought Precila and Wilma to the Philippine Constabulary Headquarters at Camp Crame, Quezon City, where Josefina and Wilma gave their statements (Exhs. "D" and "F"). Precila was physically examined by a doctor, whose medical report stated that Precila's hymen and "deep, healing lacerations" and that "subject is in non-virgin state physically" (Exh. A). Several needle puncture marks were also found on Precila's arms and buttocks. A physical examination was likewise done on Wilma, which showed that she too had a needle puncture, as shown in the Medico-Legal Report (Exh. "L"). Acting on the complaint filed before the Constabulary Anti-Narcotics Unit (CANU), a surveillance of appellant's residence was conducted. Subsequently, a search warrant was secured from Judge Jose P. Castro of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City. Armed with the warrant, CANU agents raided appellant's residence on July 15, 1979. Assorted drugs, such as dalmane, valium and mogadon, as well as prescription pads in the name of Dr. Jesus Yap (Exhs. "H" "H-4") and other medical instruments, such as a "thermometer, a "hygomonometer (sic), stethoscope, syringes and needles, were seized. The Handwriting Identification Report (Exh. "I") on the prescription slips showed that these were written by the appellant himself. The report on the chemistry examination of the seized tablets and capsules (Exhs. "J" "J-1") confirmed the presence of mogadon, dalmane and valium. After the preliminary investigation, separate informations for rape and violation of R.A. No. 2382 were filed. Appellant pleaded not guilty to both crimes. The defense's version is that in the evening of July 6, 1976, Agustina and Precila Borja visited the mother-in-law of the appellant, Maura Fontreras. In the course of the conversation, Agustina asked Marita if she could help Precila. Marita obliged and agreed to take care of Precila for the night and allow her to sleep in her bedroom. Precila and Marita chatted the whole night. Accordingly, Precila confessed that she was not really sick. She merely related her personal problems, involving her parents. She also admitted her vice, such as drinking, smoking and taking drugs. Their talk lasted until the wee hours of the morning and during their conversation, appellant

would occasionally enter the room but he never joined their discussion. Precila and Marita shared the same bed. Appellant; who was wearing only his pajama pants, slept on the floor at the opposite end of the room. The following morning Agustina arrived and Marita related some of Precila's problems. Nothing untoward happened that day and Agustina headed for home while Precila and Marita followed later. At past midnight of July 15, 1979, a raid was conducted by CANU agents in the house of the appellant under the supervision of C1C Agustin Timbol, Jr. The raid was made upon Josefina's complaint for illegal possession of drugs. Appellant and his wife were driven out of their bedroom, while three-men remained. Later, appellant was called to join them in the bedroom and he was shocked to see assorted drugs scattered around. Appellant denied owning them. Photographs were taken of him with the drugs. A barangay official was called to attest to the list of the confiscated drugs. Appellant, however, refused to sign the said list. C1C Timbol offered to fur the case in exchange of money. Instead of acceding, appellant demanded to see the search warrant. C1C Timbol failed to show a warrant on the pretext that they were military men without need of any identification or search warrant. Appellant, his wife and brother-in-law were forced to join C1C Timbol for questioning in Camp Crame. Upon boarding the van, appellant saw Josefina aboard kissing C1C Timbol and both exchanged victory signs. The trial court rendered two separate decisions and convicted the appellant of both crimes. In finding appellant guilty of illegal purchase of medicine, considerable weight was given to the prosecution's exhibits. The Professional Regulation Commission certified that appellant is not among the list of registered physicians nor among those with special permit to practice medicine in a limited scope (Exh. "K"). Appellant failed to refute the Handwriting Identification Report (Exh. "I") released by the PC Crime Laboratory showing that the signature of Dr. Jesus D. Yap (Exhs. "H" — "H-4") prescribing medicine belonged to him. The pictures also taken during the raid (Exhs. "G" "G-8'" undeniably reveal several medical equipment used by practicing physicians. Notwithstanding the trial court's finding that there was no direct evidence of rape, it concluded that circumstantial evidence indicate that rape was consummated by appellant considering the following: 1. The medico-legal examination of victim Precila, taken on July 8, 1979 at 10:25 in the morning or less than 48 hours from the evening of July 6, 1979 found "hymen with deep, healing lacerations at 4, 6 and 9 o'clock position"; thus indicating that the lacerations were recent as they are in the process of healing; (Exh. "A-1") 2. The above undeniable findings of the expert confirms the statement of the victim, a young girl of 16 or 17 years of age, that when she held private parts which were painful then, she noticed blood. (tsn. Alma, Feb. 9, 1984, pp. 4-5). The fresh laceration of the hymen further confirms the carnal assault. (People vs. Ocampo, L-47335, Aug. 13, 1986) 3. In the two short waking moments of the victim she noticed she was naked and beside her on the same bed was the accused, also naked. (tsn. Alma, Feb. 9, 1984, pp. 3-5)

4. The accused, then 21 years of age was in the prime of youth, and the unconscious girl beside him was just 16 or 17 years of age, thus in the full bloom of womanhood. The sexual excitement on the part of the accused was therefore exceedingly great. 5. When the mother, Agustina, came into the room of the accused that early morning of July 7, 1979 she saw her daughter and the accused on the same bed and both naked. (tsn., Rogato, Jan. 27, 1981, p. 9) 6. The medico-legal found several needle puncture marks on the arms and buttocks of Precila (Exh. "A"); thus confirming Precila's testimony that she had been injected by the accused, rendering her unconscious (tsn. Alma, Feb. 9, 1984, pp. 4-5; tsn., Nenita, May 21, 1984, pp. 3-6; also pp. 29-30). 7. The medico-legal found the victim "in non-virgin state physically." (Exh; "A-i") 8. At the time of the medico-legal examination, i.e. morning of July 8, 1979, the victim was found to be "incoherent." (Exh. A) — after effect of the injections or drugs. 9. At the time of the incident (July 6, 1979) the Borjas and Frontreras (sic) were "comadres" and neighbors. There is no enmity between and among them. 10. Between accused and Marita on one hand, and the victim, her mother, and sisters, on the other hand, there was no misunderstanding before the incident. There is absolutely absence of any ulterior motive for the teen-aged victim or her family to file the serious charge of rape which would expose her to embarrassment of examination of her private parts and public trial (Rollo, pp. 38-39). In his first assignment of error, appellant questions the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Appellant faults complainant for recounting her ordeal only after four years when she took the witness stand. This argument is misleading. The record shows that the day after the rape, Josefina and Wilma Borja, accompanied by their mother, Agustina, issued their statements at Camp Crame. Agustina gave her statement twice on separate days. Precila did not give any statement due to her weak condition but it cannot be denied that she was instead physically examined. Suffice it to say, the Medico Legal Report (Exh. "A") indicates swellings and lacerations and concludes that Precila was no longer a virgin. Although the records fail to show any sworn statement by Precila, such is not fatal where the sworn affidavits of her mother, her two sisters and the medico-legal report are sufficient to show probable cause of rape (People v. Yambao, 193 SGRA 571 [1991]). Precila was either dizzy or unconscious at the time she was sexually abused. We find her testimony consistent and credible. While her testimony is limited to the times when she would gain her consciousness, it is not unlikely that such traumatic incidents would still be engraved on her mind even four years after. Appellant's assertion that Precila failed to inform her family of his misdeeds is explainable. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, Precila was still dizzy and incoherent as a consequence of the injections administered by appellant. In fact, when Precila was physically examined by the doctor the day after, she was still sleepy and groggy (TSN, March 31, 1980, pp. 7-8). Appellant also finds it strange that considering the acts allegedly committed by him against Precila, the medico-legal report fails to specify any injuries on the body of Precila. Appellant need not inflict heavy blows on Precila for the simple reason that she was under sedation. The absence of the injuries does not negate the commission of rape (People v. Torrevillas, 203 SCRA 576 [1991]; People v. Arenas, 198 172 [1991]) for rape may be committed after

rendering a woman unconscious (Art. 335, Revised Penal Code; People v. Gerones, 193 SCRA 263 [1991]). Appellant alleges that Precila was no longer a virgin on that fateful day and that her bleeding was actually the start of her menstrual cycle. It is settled jurisprudence that virginity is not an essential element of rape (People v. Corro, 197 SCRA 121 [1991]; People v. Banayo, 195 SCRA 543 [1991]). To claim that Precila's menstrual cycle began on that day is highly speculative. Appellant claims that the sworn statements of the Borjas (Exhs. "D", "E" and "F") were antedated and were prepared after the illegal search was conducted in his residence. He also cites some inconsistencies in said statements. We find the claim to be devoid of merit. It is only now on appeal that appellant disputes the execution of these affidavits. When they were presented and offered as evidence, appellant failed to raise such objections and to refute them. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses merely refer to minor details, which cannot destroy their credibility (People v. Doctolero, 193 SCRA 632 [1991]). This is also true where statements made while on the witness stand are claimed to be inconsistent with the affidavit, which are generally incomplete (People v. Lagota, 194 SCRA 92 [1991]; People v. Avanzado, 158 SCRA 427 [1988]). With regard to the second assignment of error, appellant insists that his conviction arose from insufficient evidence and his failure to prove his innocence. Indeed, the circumstantial evidence established at the trial are more than sufficient to prove the guilt of appellant. The Medico-Legal Report on Precila, taken within 48 hours from the commission of rape confirmed that her hymen had "deep, healing lacerations at 4, 6 and 9 o'clock position" and Precila was "in non-virgin state physically" (Exh. "A"). Furthermore, the report confirms that Precila had at least six needle puncture marks and swellings, which confirm that appellant had injected her several times. On the two occasions that Precila woke up, she positively stated that appellant was with her on the bed and that they were both naked. She also tried to free herself on both attempts from accused, but, he made her unconscious through injections (TSN, February 9, 1984, pp. 3-5). This is corroborated by the testimony of Agustina, who saw her daughter and accused together naked on bed (TSN, January 27, 1981, p. 9). These unbroken chain of events leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion that accused actually raped Precila. As held in People v. Yambao, supra, credence is given to the findings of the trial court where the rape victim's testimony is buttressed by the corroborative testimony of the mother and the medico-legal report, as well as the report of the police investigator. It must also be borne in mind that at the time of the commission of the crime, Precila was just sixteen years old. No young lady at the prime of her youth would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her intimate parts and later bare herself to the disgrace brought to her honor in a public trial unless she was motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit apprehended and brought to justice (People v. Patilan, 197 SCRA 354 [1991]; People v. Yambao, 193 SCRA 571 [1991]). Appellant claims that his right to be presumed innocent was violated. He cites the trial court's decision holding that it. — . . . finds that with these circumstantial evidences (sic) pieced together the prosecution has proved the crime of rape, and the burden shifted on the defense to show the contrary (Rollo, p. 40).

Appellant was afforded a fair trial and in fact he availed of surrebuttal evidence. The statement of the trial court, as correctly argued by the Solicitor General, implies that the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support appellant's conviction unless the defense is able to provide evidence to the contrary. With respect to his conviction of illegal practice of medicine, appellant presented inconsistent claims. On one hand, he claims that the drugs and other paraphernalia were planted by the raiding team; while on the other hand, he claims that these were seized without any warrant. If indeed the evidence were all planted, how can appellant explain his handwriting on the prescription pads in the name of Dr. Jesus Yap? A perusal of the photographs showing accused during the raid, fails to indicate any protestation by him. In fact, the other photographs (Exhs. "G-l", "G-2", "G-4" — "G-8") do not bear any sign of disorder, in contrast to appellant's testimony that his room was made into a mess during the raid. The records fail to disclose a copy of a search warrant. However, the prosecution was able to present its return (Exh. "ZZ") and we are satisfied that indeed a lawful search warrant was obtained. Besides, the judge who granted the search warrant was the same judge who initially heard both criminal cases. It can therefore be presumed, that the search was made with a search warrant and absent of any showing that it was procured maliciously, the items seized are admissible in evidence (People v. Umali, 193 SCRA 493 [1991]). The evidence is overwhelming that appellant actually treated and diagnosed Precila and Wilma Borja. The positive testimony of Agustina, Precila, Wilma and Josefina Borja; the medico-legal reports (Exhs. "A", "A-7", "C", "L" and "L-1") which attest to the needle marks; the Handwriting Identification Report (Exh. I); the photographs (Exhs. "G-l — "G-8") showing assorted drugs and medical equipment in appellant's room; and the chemistry reports (Exhs. "J" — "J-1") prove that appellant was engaged in the practice of medicine. And as to his allegation that there was no proof of payment, the law specifically punishes said act whether or not done for a fee. Appellant claims that Precila admitted in her cross-examination that she was in school the whole day of July 6, 1979 and it was therefore impossible for him to have treated and diagnosed her on that date. An accurate reading of the transcript, however, will show that Precila's testimony was in response to a question regarding her school schedule for that day. Finally, appellant claims that the ponente of both decisions was not the trial judge, ergo said judge was thus deprived of the opportunity to assess the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Admittedly, the ponente's participation was limited to the resolution of the cases. The fact that the judge who heard the evidence is not the one who rendered the judgment, and for that reason the latter did not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during the trial but merely relied on the records of the case, does not render the judgment erroneous (People v. Ramos, Jr., 203 SCRA 237 [1991]; People v. Villamayor, 199 SCRA 472 [1991]), especially where the evidence on record is sufficient to support its conclusion. WHEREFORE, the judgments appealed from are AFFIRMED in toto. Costs de oficio. SO ORDERED.