Samahan ng Optometrists sa Pilipinas, Ilocos Sur-Abra Chapter v. Acebedo International Corporation
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns whether corporations, specifically optical shops and eyeware stores, are prohibited from employing optometrists. Petitioners, representing a professional organization of optometrists, argued that such employment by corporations constitutes an indirect violation of laws reserving the practice of professions to natural persons. The core of the contention is whether a corporation hiring licensed optometrists to serve its customers is itself engaging in the practice of optometry. Procedural History: The case originated when Acebedo International Corporation applied for a permit to operate a branch in Candon, Ilocos Sur. The Samahan ng Optometrists sa Pilipinas (SOP) opposed this application, asserting that Acebedo, as a juridical entity, was not qualified to practice optometry. A committee formed by the Mayor of Candon denied Acebedo's application, a decision later upheld by the Regional Trial Court of Candon. Acebedo appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court's ruling, finding that Acebedo was not practicing optometry but merely selling optical products and employing optometrists to assist customers. The petitioners then sought review of the Court of Appeals' decision. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Acebedo International Corporation did not violate the Optometry Law (Republic Act No. 1998) by employing optometrists to practice optometry under its name and on its behalf. They contended that this practice by the corporation was an illegal activity and a circumvention of the law reserving the practice of optometry to natural persons. The petition specifically questioned whether the hiring of optometrists by a corporation for its business operations constituted the corporation itself practicing optometry.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that private respondent Acebedo International Corporation does not violate the Optometry Law (R.A. No. 1998) when it employs optometrists to engage in the practice of optometry under its name and for its behalf. Whether a corporation engaged in selling optical wares, which hires optometrists to administer eye examinations and prescribe lenses, is considered to be practicing optometry.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Court of Appeals did not err in declaring that Acebedo International Corporation does not violate the Optometry Law (R.A. No. 1998) when it employs optometrists. The hiring of optometrists by a corporation engaged in selling optical wares is not considered the practice of optometry by the corporation itself.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether Acebedo International Corporation violates the Optometry Law by employing optometrists: The Court held that the petition lacks merit. Private respondent Acebedo International Corporation employs optometrists whose role is to administer proper eye examinations to determine the correct type and grade of lenses for its customers. Petitioners argue that this constitutes the practice of optometry by the corporation itself, violating R.A. No. 1998. However, the Court found this contention untenable. The fact that Acebedo hires optometrists who practice their profession in the course of their employment does not mean that Acebedo itself is practicing optometry. Acebedo is a corporation organized for the purpose of conducting the business of selling optical lenses or eyeglasses. The determination of the proper lenses needed by customers necessitates the employment of optometrists, but Acebedo's business is the sale of these products, not the determination of the vision needs itself. On the issue of whether a corporation is considered to be practicing optometry when it hires optometrists: The Court emphasized that for petitioners' argument to hold, there must be a clear showing that R.A. No. 1998 prohibits a corporation from hiring optometrists. Upon careful review of R.A. No. 1998, the Court found no such prohibition. Section 2 of R.A. No. 1998 prohibits any person from practicing or attempting to practice optometry without a valid certificate of registration, but this prohibition is addressed to natural persons and cannot be extrapolated to prohibit corporations from hiring optometrists. Even R.A. No. 8050, the Revised Optometry Law, does not contain such a prohibition. Therefore, the hiring of optometrists by corporations is not prohibited nor considered as the practice of optometry by the corporation itself.
Main Doctrine
A corporation engaged in the business of selling optical wares is not considered to be practicing optometry when it hires licensed optometrists to administer eye examinations and prescribe lenses incidental to its business of selling optical products. The prohibition against the practice of optometry under R.A. No. 1998 and R.A. No. 8050 is addressed to natural persons and does not extend to corporations hiring optometrists.