Lyceum of the Philippines University

Muralla St, Intramuros, Manila, 1002 Metro

Manila

“PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION, ET AL

vs. ARLENE DE GUZMAN, ET AL”

Assigned Work
CASE STUDY

Lyceum of the Philippines University

Intramuros, Manila

Proponents:

Lagdamin, Jose Paulo M.

B417
 PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION, ET AL vs. ARLENE DE
GUZMAN, ET AL
G.R. No. 144681 June 21, 2004
TINGA, J.

Facts
Respondents are graduates of Fatima College of Medicine. They passed the Physical
Licensure Examination conducted by the Board of Medicine. Petitioner Professional Regulation
Commission then released their names as successful takers of the examination. Later on, the Board
noticed that the successful examinees form Fatima College in the two most difficult subjects in the
licensure exam were unusually and exceptionally high. A few of them even got 100% and 99% in
those subjects. Many of the passers got more than 95% and no one got lower than 90%. A
comparison among the schools was made and a statistical analysis was produced, stating 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 in terms of talent, effort, energy, etc. The National Bureau of Investigation concluded that
the examinees of Fatima College gained early access to the test questions. Respondents then filed
before the trial court an action for mandamus, compelling petitioners to administer their physician's
oath, to which the said court granted. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the said decision.
Hence, this petition.
a) Petitioner’s Arguments (PRC, et al. – Win)- Argued that for a writ of mandamus to issue,
the applicant must have a well-defined, clear andcertain legal right to the thing
demanded. Thus, mandamus may be availed of only when the dutysought to be
performed is a ministerial and not a discretionary one. However, the issuance of alicense
to engage in the practice of medicine becomes discretionary on the PRC if there
existssome doubt that the successful examinee has not fully met the requirements of the
law-Appealed to SC the decision of CA
b) Respondent’s Arguments (De Guzman, et al. – Lost)-Filed a writ of mandamus to compel
Petitioner to allow them to take the oath as physicians afterpassing the physician
licensure examination despite the finding of Petitioner that there is ananomaly because
all of the Respondents got exceptional grades in the two most difficult subjectsin the
medical licensure exam, Biochemistry (Bio-Chem) and Obstetrics and Gynecology (OB-
Gyne)-CA promulgate a decision in their favor
Issue

 Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court's judgment that
respondents are entitled to a writ of mandamus

 Whether or not Petitioner can be compelled to allow Respondents to take the oath as
physicians after passing the physician licensure examination despite the finding of Petitioner
that there is an anomaly in their grades
  Whether or not the act pursuant toR.A. 2382 (prescribes that a person who
aspires to practice medicine in the Philippines, must have “satisfactorily passed
the corresponding Board Examination) known as The Medical Act of 1959 a valid
exercise of police power.

Ruling
No. 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. The petition is hereby granted.

Conclusion:
Petitioner cannot be compelled. The appeal is granted
Rule:
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.32There must be a well-defined, clear and certain legal
right to the thing demanded.33It 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 right35of every citizen to select a profession or course of study subject to a fair,
reasonable, and equitable admission and academicrequirements.36But 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.37Thus, 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.