Legal Medicine 1st Assignment (Practice of Medicine) - E

1. PRC vs De Guzman (2004)

Facts:

The respondents are all graduates of the Fatima College of 

Medicine, Valenzuela City, Metro Manila. They passed thePhysician Licensure Eamination conducted in Fe!ruary

"##$ !y the %oard of Medicine &%oard'. Petitioner 

Professional (egulation Commission &P(C' then releasedtheir names as successful eaminees in the medical

licensure eamination. )hortly thereafter, the %oardo!ser*ed that the grades of the se*enty+nine successful

eaminees from Fatima College in the to most difficult

su!-ects in the medical licensure eam, %iochemistry &%io+Chem' and !stetrics and /ynecology &%+/yne', ere

unusually and eceptionally high. Ele*en Fatima

eaminees scored "001 in %io+Chem and ten got "001 in%+/yne, another ele*en got ##1 in %io+Chem, and

tenty+one scored ##1 in %+/yne.

For its part, the 2%3 found that 4the 5uestiona!le passing rate of Fatima eaminees in the 6"##$7 Physician

Eamination leads to the conclusion that the Fatimaeaminees gained early access to the test 5uestions.8

The %oard recommended that the test results of the

Fatima eaminees !e nullified.

The students filed a petition for mandamus, hich as

granted !y the trial court and the C9.

Issue: hether or not mandamus is proper.

Held: 2o. 2o clear legal right and no ministerial duty on

the part of P(C. 9 careful reading of )ection ;0 of theMedical 9ct of "#<# discloses that the la uses the ord

shall ith respect to the issuance of certificates of 

registration. Thus, the petitioners shall sign and issuecertificates of registration to those ho ha*e satisfactorily

complied ith the re5uirements of the %oard.

)ection = of (ep. 9ct 2o. ;$=; prescri!es, amongothers, that a person ho aspires to practice medicine in the

Philippines, must ha*e satisfactorily passed thecorresponding %oard Eamination. )ection ;;, in turn,

 pro*ides that the oath may only !e administered to physicians ho 5ualified in the eaminations. The

operati*e ord here is satisfactorily, defined as sufficient to

meet a condition or o!ligation or capa!le of dispellingdou!t or ignorance. /leaned from %oard (esolution 2o.

;>, the licensing authority apparently did not find that the

respondents satisfactorily passed the licensureeaminations. The %oard instead sought to nullify the

eamination results o!tained !y the respondents.

2. DECS vs San Die! (1"#")

Facts:

)an ?iego, pri*ate respondent graduate of @E &Aoology',tooB 2M9T $ times and flunBed $ times. The fourth time

he ill taBe 2M9T, he as re-ected !y ?EC) and ?CEM

for the rule that: 49 student shall !e alloed only three &$'chances to taBe the 2M9T. 9fter three &$' successi*e

failures, a student shall not !e alloed to taBe the 2M9T

for the fourth time8.

(amon /ue*arra then ent to the (egional Trial

Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, to compel hisadmission to the test. e in*oBed his constitutional rights to

academic freedom and 5uality education.

%y agreement of the parties, herein defendant asalloed to taBe the 2M9T scheduled on 9pril ">, "#=#,

su!-ect to the outcome of his petition. 3n an amended

 petition filed ith lea*e of court, )an ?iego s5uarelychallenged the constitutionality of MEC) rder 2o. ";,

)eries of "#D;, containing the a!o*e+cited rule. The

additional grounds raised ere due process and e5ual protection. (espondent udge Teresita ?izon+Capulong

ruled that the MEC) rder 2o. ";, )eries of "#D; asin*alid and held that the petitioner had !een depri*ed of his

right to pursue a medical education through an ar!itrary

eercise of the police poer. ence, this petition.

Issue: hether or not MEC) is unconstitutional.

Held: 2o. 4hile his persistence is noteorthy, to say the

least, it is certainly misplaced, liBe a hopeless lo*e.8

1 | P a g e