Alfafara v. Acebedo Optical Co., Inc.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, licensed optometrists and members of the Samahan ng Optometrists sa Pilipinas-Cebu Chapter, filed an injunctive suit against respondent Acebedo Optical Co., Inc., alleging that respondent, through its employed optometrists, was engaging in the practice of optometry by examining eyes, prescribing lenses, and conducting visual trainings, in violation of Republic Act No. 1998 (Optometry Law) and the Code of Ethics for Optometrists, and that respondent advertised "ready-to-wear" eyeglasses for sale with free services. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 9, Cebu City, initially dismissed the suit but later reinstated it and granted a writ of preliminary injunction, finding respondent's hiring of optometrists unlawful as it constituted the practice of optometry by a juridical person; respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC decision, dismissing the complaint and ruling that respondent's hiring of licensed optometrists did not constitute the practice of optometry nor violate any law, citing a previous case, and also finding that the optometrists were not indispensable parties and that petitioners were not guilty of forum-shopping, with petitioners' motion for reconsideration being denied. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging that the CA erred in holding that respondent Acebedo was not engaged in the practice of optometry.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Acebedo Optical Co., Inc., a corporation, is engaged in the practice of optometry by hiring licensed optometrists. Whether the optometrists employed by respondent are indispensable parties to the suit. Whether the petitioners were guilty of forum-shopping.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether respondent Acebedo Optical Co., Inc. is engaged in the practice of optometry: The Court held that a corporation, not being a natural person, cannot engage in the practice of optometry. Only natural persons can take the licensure examinations and be registered as optometrists. While respondent hired licensed optometrists, this act alone did not constitute the practice of optometry by the corporation itself. The Court distinguished this case from Apacionado v. Professional Regulation Commission, where the optometrists themselves were found guilty of unprofessional conduct for participating in promotional advertisements that offered free consultations, thereby acting as tools for the corporation's indirect practice. In the present case, respondent was found to be engaged in the business of selling optical products, and the employment of optometrists was not prohibited by R.A. No. 1998 or R.A. No. 8050. The Court reiterated its ruling in Samahan ng Optometrists sa Pilipinas, Ilocos Sur-Abra Chapter v. Acebedo International Corporation, stating that R.A. No. 1998 does not prohibit corporations from employing licensed optometrists; the prohibition is addressed to individuals who must be licensed. The fact that Acebedo hired optometrists who practiced their profession in the course of their employment did not mean that Acebedo itself was engaged in the practice of optometry. On the issue of whether the optometrists employed by respondent are indispensable parties: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that the optometrists were not indispensable parties. The suit was lodged solely against respondent for its alleged illegal hiring of optometrists. Whatever decision the court would render would solely affect respondent, as the prayer was to restrain the employment of licensed optometrists. The practice of optometry by the employed optometrists is separate and distinct from the business of selling optical products by respondent. The optometrists are personally liable for acts done in the course of their practice, and the Board of Optometry and the Professional Regulation Commission regulate their practice, having exclusive original jurisdiction over them. On the issue of whether the petitioners were guilty of forum-shopping: The Court found no cogent reason to reverse the CA's findings. The CA had found that the administrative case before the Professional Regulation Commission was not decided on the merits, and the letters sent by petitioners to government officials did not constitute judicial proceedings. Therefore, the elements of forum-shopping were not present.
Main Doctrine
A corporation, not being a natural person, cannot engage in the practice of optometry. While a corporation may employ licensed optometrists, it is not itself practicing optometry by reason of such employment, provided it does not violate regulations pertaining to the practice of the profession.