PRC vs. De Guzman

A writ of mandamus will not issue to compel the PRC and Board of Medicine to administer the physician's oath and register medical examinees when substantial doubts exist regarding the validity of their examination results, because the duty to issue certificates is discretionary (not purely ministerial) when "satisfactory" compliance with the requirements of the Medical Act of 1959 is uncertain, and a license to practice medicine is a privilege that may be withheld pending resolution of administrative charges alleging fraud and dishonest conduct.

The case arose from the February 1993 Physician Licensure Examination where seventy-nine graduates of Fatima College of Medicine obtained statistically anomalous and unprecedented high scores in Biochemistry and Obstetrics-Gynecology, prompting the Board of Medicine to investigate potential irregularities and withhold registration pending determination of whether the examinees had "satisfactorily" complied with examination requirements or had engaged in fraudulent conduct.

• Respondents are seventy-nine graduates of Fatima College of Medicine who passed the February 1993 Physician Licensure Examination conducted by the Board of Medicine.
• The Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) initially released their names as successful examinees.
• The Board of Medicine observed that respondents' grades in Biochemistry and Obstetrics-Gynecology were unusually and exceptionally high, with eleven examinees scoring 100% in Biochemistry, ten scoring 100% in OB-Gyne, eleven scoring 99% in Biochemistry, and twenty-one scoring 99% in OB-Gyne, with no one scoring below 90%.
• Statistical analysis by Fr. Bienvenido F. Nebres, S.J., an expert mathematician, revealed that the scores were not only incredibly high but unusually clustered close to each other, eliminating normal variations expected from examinees of different talent and effort levels.
• The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) concluded that the Fatima examinees gained early access to the test questions.
• The Board issued Resolution No. 19 withholding the registration of all Fatima examinees and subsequently filed Administrative Case No. 1687 charging respondents with "immorality, dishonest conduct, fraud, and deceit" and seeking to nullify the examination results.
• During the pendency of the mandamus case, several respondents manifested that they were no longer interested in proceeding with the case and moved for dismissal, while others were dropped from the suit by the trial court.
• The instant decision applies only to the remaining respondents: 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.

• The duty to issue certificates of registration under Section 20 of Republic Act No. 2382 is discretionary, not ministerial, when there exists doubt as to whether the examinees have satisfactorily complied with the requirements of the law, particularly regarding the integrity of the examination results.
• The Court of Appeals' prior decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 31701 (affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 112315) established that the issuance of a license becomes discretionary if there is doubt as to the moral fitness of the examinees.
• Mandamus will not lie to compel the performance of a discretionary act or to establish a right where none exists; it only enforces existing rights.
• The statistical anomalies and NBI findings create grave doubts about the satisfactory passage of the examinations, justifying the withholding of registration pending the resolution of administrative charges.
• The petition for mandamus was premature because administrative remedies had not been exhausted, specifically the appeal process under Section 26 of R.A. No. 2382 from the Board's Resolution No. 26 seeking to nullify the examination results.

• Having passed the licensure examinations and complied with all statutory requirements under Republic Act No. 2382, they possess a clear legal right to be registered as physicians, making mandamus the appropriate remedy.
• Section 20 of R.A. No. 2382 uses the mandatory term "shall," imposing a ministerial duty on the Board to issue certificates to those who have satisfactorily complied with the requirements.
• None of the statutory disqualifications under Section 20—conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, being found guilty of immoral or dishonorable conduct after investigation, or being declared of unsound mind—apply to them.
• The pendency of administrative proceedings (Adm. Case No. 1687) does not bar the issuance of the writ of mandamus because the right to registration vested upon their passing the examination, and the administrative case seeks only disciplinary action, not a declaration that they failed the examination.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the petition for mandamus was premature due to the non-exhaustion of administrative remedies provided under Section 26 of R.A. No. 2382.
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the mandamus petition in light of the Supreme Court's prior Resolution in G.R. No. 112315 affirming that license issuance is discretionary when moral fitness is in doubt.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether respondents have a valid cause of action for mandamus to compel the PRC and Board of Medicine to administer the physician's oath and register them as physicians.
  • Whether the duty of the Board to issue certificates of registration under Section 20 of R.A. No. 2382 is ministerial or discretionary when grave doubts exist regarding the integrity and validity of the examination results.

• Procedural:
  • The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply where a pure question of law is raised, such as the interpretation of Section 20 of R.A. No. 2382 regarding the nature of the duty to issue certificates.
  • The prior ruling in G.R. No. 112315 did not preclude the present action because the issue of whether respondents "satisfactorily passed" the examination—a condition precedent to registration—remained unresolved and was not yet final at the time the mandamus petition was filed.
• Substantive:
  • The Court held that the duty to issue certificates of registration under Section 20 of R.A. No. 2382 is not purely ministerial when there are substantial doubts regarding whether the examinees "satisfactorily" complied with the requirements.
  • While Section 20 uses the word "shall," making it imperative, it must be read in conjunction with Section 8 (requiring that one has "satisfactorily passed" the examination) and Section 22 (vesting the Board with power to disapprove applications for registration after investigation).
  • The term "satisfactorily" implies sufficient compliance to meet a condition or obligation capable of dispelling doubt; the statistical anomalies and NBI findings regarding possible fraud created sufficient doubt to justify the Board's withholding of registration.
  • A license to practice medicine is a privilege granted by the State under its police power, not a vested right, and may be regulated to protect public health and welfare; mandamus will not lie to compel the issuance of such a privilege when compliance with requirements is doubtful.
  • The Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision dated May 16, 2000, and the Regional Trial Court judgment dated December 19, 1994, and nullified the writ of mandamus issued in Civil Case No. 93-66530.

• Nature of Professional License as a Privilege — A license to practice medicine is a privilege or franchise granted by the government, not a matter of right, and is subject to reasonable regulation by the State under its police power to safeguard public health, morals, and general welfare.
• Requisites for Mandamus — Mandamus lies only to enforce a clear legal duty, not involving discretion, where the applicant has a well-defined, clear, and certain legal right to the thing demanded; it does not lie to establish a right but to enforce one already established by law, nor to compel the performance of a discretionary act.
• Statutory Construction: Harmonious Whole — Each part of a statute must be construed in connection with every other part to produce a harmonious whole; the imperative term "shall" in Section 20 of R.A. No. 2382 (duty to issue certificates) must be read with Sections 8 and 22 requiring "satisfactory" passage of the examination and allowing the Board to disapprove applications upon investigation.
• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Exception — The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply where the issue raised is a pure question of law requiring statutory interpretation rather than factual determination by administrative bodies.
• Police Power and Professional Regulation — The State may regulate the exercise of professions requiring scientific or technical knowledge through examinations and licensing requirements to protect the public from incompetence and ignorance, provided such regulation is not arbitrary, despotic, or oppressive.

• "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."
• "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."
• "It is long established rule that a license to practice medicine is a privilege or franchise granted by the government."
• "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."

• Reyes v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the principle that the constitutional right to select a profession is subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements.
• Philippine Medical Association v. Board of Medical Examiners — Cited to uphold the State's power to require examinations for medical practice and to annul licenses issued without compliance with statutory requirements.
• Tablarin v. Judge Angelina S. Gutierrez — Cited to recognize the State's power to upgrade selection of medical school applicants through admission tests as a valid exercise of police power.
• Yick Wo v. Hopkins — Cited regarding the principle that license legislation must not vest arbitrary discretion in public officials without prescribing definite rules and conditions for the guidance of such officials.
• Bautista v. Board of Energy and Gancho-on v. Secretary of Labor and Employment — Cited regarding the principles of mootness and justiciability of controversies.

• Republic Act No. 2382 (Medical Act of 1959), Section 1 — States the objectives of the Act: standardization and regulation of medical education, examination for registration, and supervision of medical practice.
• Republic Act No. 2382, Section 8 — Requires that no person shall practice medicine unless he has "satisfactorily passed" the corresponding Board Examination.
• Republic Act No. 2382, Section 9 — Prescribes qualifications for candidates for board examinations, including good moral character and sound mind.
• Republic Act No. 2382, Section 20 — Mandates that the Board "shall sign and issue certificates of registration to those who have satisfactorily complied with the requirements," but prohibits issuance to those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude, found guilty of immoral conduct after investigation, or declared of unsound mind.
• Republic Act No. 2382, Section 22 — Vests the Board with power to conduct administrative investigations, disapprove applications for examination or registration, and administer oath only to physicians who "qualified in the examinations."
• Republic Act No. 2382, Section 26 — Provides for the administrative remedy of appeal from Board decisions to the PRC, then to the Office of the President, and finally to the courts via certiorari.
• Rule 65, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Defines when a writ of mandamus may issue: when a tribunal unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right.

• Chief Justice Artemio V. Puno and Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. — Joined the majority opinion without separate written concurrence.