Gonzales v. Board of Pharmacy
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Francisco Gonzales y Salazar, an alumnus of the College of Pharmacy of Spain and a licensed pharmacist in the Province of Antique from 1887 to 1895, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Board of Pharmacy to issue him a license to practice pharmacy in the Philippine Islands. He alleged that his prior license was never revoked and that, during the Spanish regime, his qualifications were equivalent to those of graduates from the University of Santo Tomas. Procedural History: The plaintiff filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus. The defendants, the Board of Pharmacy and its Secretary-Treasurer, interposed a demurrer to the complaint. The Petition: The plaintiff alleged that the Board of Pharmacy failed to fulfill a clear legal duty by refusing to issue him a license, thereby depriving him of his right to practice his profession. He further excused his failure to register within the 120-day period prescribed by Section 11 of Act No. 597, claiming he was in the interior of Negros and unaware of the requirement. He asserted that upon learning of the law, he petitioned the Governor-General for permission to register, but was unable to secure it.
Issue(s)
Whether the Board of Pharmacy has a clear legal duty to issue a license to practice pharmacy to the plaintiff. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the issuance of a license to practice pharmacy.
Ruling
The demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and the complaint was dismissed upon the merits, unless the plaintiff amended his complaint within ten days to cure the specified defects.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the Board of Pharmacy did not have a clear legal duty to issue a license to the plaintiff. Act No. 597 established specific classes of individuals eligible for a license: those who pass the examination, graduates of the University of Santo Tomas, and those engaged in practice at the time of the Act's passage who registered within 120 days. The plaintiff did not fall into any of these categories, as it was not alleged that he passed the examination, was a graduate of the University of Santo Tomas, or was engaged in practice at the time of the Act's passage and registered accordingly. Therefore, the Board would be remiss in its duty if it issued a license without these qualifications. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to a writ of mandamus. For such a writ to issue, the plaintiff must have a clear legal right to the thing demanded, and it must be the imperative duty of the defendant to perform the act required. Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to a license under Act No. 597, and the Board of Pharmacy had no legal duty to issue one under the circumstances, the writ of mandamus could not be granted. The writ is a command to exercise a power already possessed and perform a duty already imposed, not to confer powers or impose duties.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a writ of mandamus may only be issued to compel the performance of a clear legal duty. In this case, the Board of Pharmacy was not under a clear legal duty to issue a license to the plaintiff because he failed to meet the statutory requirements of Act No. 597, specifically by not passing the required examination, not being a graduate of the University of Santo Tomas, and not registering within the prescribed period after the law's passage while engaged in practice.