United States vs. Gomez Jesus

The State may, under its police power, regulate the practice of medicine, prescribe moral and professional qualifications, and authorize a medical board to revoke a license for immoral or dishonorable conduct or unprofessional conduct without violating due process; such revocation is not an exercise of judicial power. The Philippine Bill did not repeal section 8 of Act No. 310, and the sentence for practicing medicine without a license was affirmed.

Dominador Gomez Jesus was a physician licensed to practice medicine in the Philippine Islands. Act No. 310 of the Philippine Commission created the Board of Medical Examiners, required a certificate of registration for the practice of medicine and surgery, and authorized the Board to refuse or revoke such certificate for conviction of an offense involving immoral or dishonorable conduct or for unprofessional conduct, subject to appeal to the Board of Health. The Philippine Bill, enacted by the United States Congress on July 1, 1902, provided that no law shall be enacted in the Islands depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denying equal protection.

Dominador Gomez Jesus was licensed to practice medicine in the Philippine Islands before August 28, 1909. Prior to that date, he had been accused, arrested, tried, and found guilty of a violation of the Opium Law. In August 1909, the Board of Medical Examiners for the Philippine Islands cited him to appear and show cause why his license to practice medicine should not be revoked under section 8 of Act No. 310. After investigating the question of revocation based on his prior conviction for an offense involving immoral or dishonorable conduct, the Board concluded that he had been guilty of such an offense and adopted a resolution revoking his license. He was duly notified of the Board’s action. He later appealed to the Director of Health, but the appeal was finally withdrawn by him.

After his license was revoked, Gomez Jesus practiced medicine in the Philippine Islands. He treated, operated upon, prescribed for, and advised patients for a fee, and these services were not rendered in cases of emergency, as family remedies, or through consultation with duly admitted physicians or surgeons. The complaint filed on July 17, 1913 by C.A. Sobral, assistant prosecuting attorney of Manila, alleged that between January 1911 and June 1913, in Manila, while he had been suspended from practice on or about August 28, 1909 by the Board and while his license as physician and surgeon was revoked, he willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously treated, operated upon, prescribed for, and advised for the physical ailments of one Margarita Dolores and other persons for a fee. The complaint further alleged that he presented himself by means of signs, cards, advertisements, and otherwise as a physician and surgeon duly admitted, empowered, and allowed to practice medicine, when he knew he was not allowed to practice medicine in any way in Manila or anywhere in the Philippine Islands for a fee, and when the services were not in a case of emergency, administration of family remedies, or through a call in consultation with other duly admitted physicians or surgeons.

The record also established that Gomez Jesus was not a medical officer of the United States Army, the United States Navy, or the United States Marine Hospital Service; nor was he a physician or surgeon from another country called in consultation, or a medical student practicing medicine under the direct supervision of a preceptor who was a registered doctor of medicine.

The trial court found that the “Hotel Quirurgico” was Doctor Gomez himself and that the institution existed only to cloak the violation of the law by the defendant. The record showed that appellant personally engaged in the practice of medicine and surgery without authorization, and that the patients who called him for medical assistance believed they were being treated by appellant rather than by the “Hotel Quirurgico.”

• Due Process and Philippine Bill: Appellant argued that section 8 of Act No. 310 was null and void because it deprived him of a right or property without due process of law, in conflict with paragraph 1 of section 5 of the Philippine Bill, Act of Congress of July 1, 1902.
• Revocation Power Belongs to Courts: Appellant maintained that the Board of Medical Examiners had no authority or right to revoke his license; that right, if any, belonged to the Courts of First Instance and the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands.
• Repeal by Philippine Bill: Appellant contended that section 8 of Act No. 310 had been repealed by section 88 of the Philippine Bill.
• Finality of Board Decision: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in considering the Board’s decision revoking his certificate final notwithstanding the appeal he had carried to the Board of Health, which had not yet been heard and finally decided as section 8 provided.
• Exclusion of Value Evidence: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in sustaining the prosecution’s objection to evidence tending to demonstrate that his certificate as doctor of medicine represented a value greater than P600.
• Hotel Quirurgico: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in holding that the “Hotel Quirurgico” was Doctor Gomez himself and that the institution existed only to cloak the violation of the law.
• Sentence: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in sentencing him to pay a fine of P200 or, in default thereof, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment and to pay the costs of trial.

• Police Power and Due Process: Whether section 8 of Act No. 310 is void as depriving appellant of a right or property without due process of law and as conflicting with the Philippine Bill.
• Judicial Power and Revocation Authority: Whether the Board of Medical Examiners had authority to revoke a physician’s license, or whether that power belongs exclusively to the courts.
• Repeal by the Philippine Bill: Whether section 8 of Act No. 310 was repealed by section 88 of the Philippine Bill.
• Finality of Board Decision: Whether the Board’s revocation decision could be treated as final despite appellant’s appeal to the Board of Health, which he later withdrew.
• Exclusion of Value Evidence: Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence that appellant’s certificate as doctor of medicine was worth more than P600.
• Hotel Quirurgico Finding: Whether the trial court erred in finding that the “Hotel Quirurgico” was Doctor Gomez himself and existed only to cloak the violation of the law.
• Penalty: Whether the sentence of a P200 fine, subsidiary imprisonment, and costs was proper.

• Police Power and Due Process: No. Section 8 of Act No. 310 is valid; regulating the practice of medicine and revoking a license for immoral or dishonorable conduct or unprofessional conduct is a valid exercise of the State’s police power and does not offend due process.
• Judicial Power and Revocation Authority: No. The Board’s power to revoke is not judicial; it is quasi-judicial administrative action, and due process does not require an appeal to the courts where a remedy is provided.
• Repeal by the Philippine Bill: No. The Philippine Bill does not repeal section 8 of Act No. 310; no inconsistency exists between them.
• Finality of Board Decision: No. Appellant cannot object to the finality of the Board’s decision when he voluntarily withdrew his appeal to the Board of Health.
• Exclusion of Value Evidence: No. The Court held that its discussion of the validity of the statute and the Board’s authority answered the second, third, and fourth assignments of error.
• Hotel Quirurgico Finding: No. The record showed appellant personally engaged in the practice of medicine without authorization; whether he practiced as the “Hotel Quirurgico” was immaterial.
• Penalty: No. The sentence of the lower court was affirmed, with costs.

• Police Power and Due Process: The State has general power to enact laws relating to persons and property within its borders to promote public health, public morals, public safety, and the general prosperity and welfare of its inhabitants. This police power includes reasonable provision for determining the qualifications of those engaging in the practice of medicine and surgery and punishing those who practice in defiance of such provisions. The power cannot be bargained away, and it may restrict or revoke rights or property when necessary to protect public health. Medicine and surgery closely concern the comfort, health, and life of every person, and only those with skill and knowledge should be permitted to practice. Act No. 310 required a certificate of registration and authorized the Board to refuse or revoke it for conviction of an offense involving immoral or dishonorable conduct or for unprofessional conduct. This regulatory scheme fell within the police power and did not conflict with the due process clause of the Philippine Bill.
• Judicial Power and Revocation Authority: Section 8 conferred upon the Board the right to grant the certificate as well as the right to revoke it, subject to appeal to the Director of Health. Although the Board’s power was quasi-judicial, its action was not judicial, any more than the action of a board determining qualifications for admission to the bar or for teaching. Due process of law is not necessarily judicial process; a law is not invalid merely because it does not provide for an appeal to the courts if a remedy is granted. The right of appeal is purely statutory, not inherent, and is not a necessary element of due process. Executive officers and boards may determine facts in the performance of their duties without exercising judicial power. The ascertainment and determination of qualifications to practice medicine, and the revocation of a license for the reasons stated in the law, did not constitute an exercise of judicial power.
• Repeal by the Philippine Bill: The Court found nothing in the Philippine Bill inconsistent with the provisions of Act No. 310 under consideration. Because there was no inconsistency, section 8 of Act No. 310 was not repealed by section 88 of the Philippine Bill.
• Finality of Board Decision: Appellant could not object to the Board’s decision as final when he himself, after appealing, voluntarily withdrew the appeal. The law provided an appeal to the Board of Health, and appellant abandoned it.
• Exclusion of Value Evidence: The Court stated that its discussion of the validity of the statute and the Board’s authority answered the arguments in support of the second, third, and fourth assignments of error. No separate reversible error was found in the exclusion of evidence on the value of appellant’s certificate.
• Hotel Quirurgico Finding: The record showed beyond question that appellant had personally engaged in the practice of medicine and surgery in clear contravention of the law without being authorized to do so. It was of little importance whether he practiced medicine and surgery as the “Hotel Quirurgico” or not. The poor sick patients who called him for medical assistance did not believe or think they were calling the “Hotel Quirurgico”; they believed they were being treated by appellant.
• Penalty: For all the foregoing reasons, the sentence of the lower court was affirmed, with costs. The lower court had imposed a fine of P200, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of failure to pay the same or any part thereof, and costs.

• Police Power — The State has inherent power to enact laws relating to persons and property within its borders to promote public health, public morals, public safety, and the general prosperity and welfare of its inhabitants. This power cannot be bargained away and may restrict or revoke rights or property when necessary to protect public health. The Court applied it to uphold Act No. 310’s regulation of the practice of medicine and the Board’s power to revoke a license for immoral or dishonorable conduct or unprofessional conduct.
• Due Process Does Not Require Judicial Process — Due process of law is not necessarily judicial process. A law is not invalid merely because it does not provide for an appeal to the courts, provided a remedy is granted. The right of appeal is purely statutory, not inherent, and is not a necessary element of due process. The Court applied this to the Board of Medical Examiners’ revocation power, which was subject to appeal to the Director of Health.
• Administrative Boards May Exercise Quasi-Judicial Powers Without Violating Separation of Powers — Conferring on a board of medical examiners the power to grant and revoke a certificate to practice medicine is not an exercise of judicial power. The action of the Board is quasi-judicial but not judicial, similar to boards determining qualifications for admission to the bar or for teaching. The Court used this to reject appellant’s claim that only courts could revoke his license.
• State Regulation of Professions — The State may prescribe qualifications for the practice of professions or trades affecting public welfare, public health, public morals, and public safety, and may regulate or control such professions or trades, even to the point of revoking the right altogether. The Court applied this to medicine and surgery, which directly concern the comfort, health, and life of every person.
• No Repeal by Implication Absent Inconsistency — A later law does not repeal an earlier law where there is no inconsistency between them. The Court found nothing in the Philippine Bill inconsistent with Act No. 310 and therefore held that section 8 of Act No. 310 was not repealed by section 88 of the Philippine Bill.

• "The state has general power to enact such laws, in relation to persons and property within its borders, as may promote public health, public morals, public safety, and the general prosperity and welfare of its inhabitants." — States the foundational police-power principle on which the validity of Act No. 310 rests.
• "Due process of law is not necessarily judicial process." — Rejects the argument that the Board’s revocation power is invalid because it does not provide for an appeal to the courts.
• "The right of appeal is a purely statutory right; it is not an inherent right." — Supports the holding that the absence of a court appeal from the Board’s decision does not violate due process.
• "The practice of medicine and surgery is a vocation which very nearly concerns the comfort, health, and life of every person in the land." — Explains why the State may impose qualifications and revoke licenses in the practice of medicine under its police power.

• Dent vs. W. Virginia, 129 U.S., 114 — Quoted at length for the rule that the State may prescribe qualifications for professions and that no one has a right to practice medicine without the necessary learning and skill; a principal authority for the police-power holding.
• Reetz vs. Michigan, 188 U.S., 505 — Cited for the propositions that due process is not necessarily judicial process, that no appeal to the courts is required if a remedy is provided, and that a board’s revocation of a license is not an exercise of judicial power.
• Case vs. Board of Health, 24 Phil. Rep., 250 — Cited for the police power of the State, the principle that the power cannot be bargained away, and that liberty is not unrestricted license.
• Mugler vs. Kansas, 123 U.S., 623 — Cited as an example of the police power extending to regulation or prohibition of businesses and even destruction of property to protect public health, morals, and safety.
• Murray’s Lessee vs. Hoboken Land etc. Co., 18 How. (U.S.), 372 — Cited for the rule that due process of law is not necessarily judicial process.
• McKane vs. Durston, 153 U.S., 684, 687 — Cited for the rule that the right to appeal is not a necessary element of due process.
• People vs. Hasbrouck, 11 Utah, 291 — Cited for the proposition that a board’s power to revoke a license for the reasons given in the law is not judicial power.

• Section 8, Act No. 310 of the Philippine Commission — Authorizes the Board of Medical Examiners to refuse to issue a certificate to an individual convicted of an offense involving immoral or dishonorable conduct and to revoke any such certificate for like cause or for unprofessional conduct after due notice and hearing, subject to appeal to the Board of Health, whose decision is final. The provision was applied to uphold the revocation of appellant’s license and his conviction for practicing without a license.
• Paragraph 1, Section 5, Philippine Bill (Act of Congress of July 1, 1902) — Provides that no law shall be enacted in the Islands depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denying equal protection. The Court held that Act No. 310 did not conflict with this provision because due process does not require judicial process or an appeal to the courts.
• Section 88, Philippine Bill (Act of Congress of July 1, 1902) — Invoked by appellant as repealing section 8 of Act No. 310. The Court found no inconsistency between the Philippine Bill and Act No. 310 and held that no repeal occurred.

Arellano, C.J.; Torres, J.; Carson, J.; Trent, J.; Araullo, J. All concurred; no separate concurring opinions are noted in the text.