Medicine v. Ota
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Yasuyuki Ota, a Japanese national married to a Filipina and residing in the Philippines for over 10 years, graduated with a Doctor of Medicine degree and completed his post-graduate internship. He applied to take the medical board examinations, submitting an affidavit of undertaking to practice only upon proof of reciprocity between Japan and the Philippines. He submitted a notarized English translation of Japan's Medical Practitioners Law, authenticated by the Philippine Consul General, and was allowed to take and pass the medical board examinations in August 1992. Procedural History: The Board of Medicine denied Ota's request for a license, believing no genuine reciprocity existed as no Filipino could possibly practice medicine in Japan. Ota filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus before the RTC, alleging arbitrary action by the Board and the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). The RTC ruled in favor of Ota, ordering the Board to issue his license, finding that Japanese law allows foreigners to practice medicine and that Ota substantially complied with requirements. The Board and PRC appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that reciprocity was not established due to impractical conditions for Filipinos and that the Board's power was discretionary, not ministerial. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision. The Petition: The Board and PRC filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and raising the issue of whether Ota had established the existence of reciprocity in the practice of medicine between the Philippines and Japan.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in finding that respondent had established the existence of reciprocity in the practice of medicine between the Philippines and Japan. Whether the power of the Board of Medicine and the PRC to issue licenses is discretionary and not compellable by a writ of mandamus.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not commit any reversible error in affirming the RTC's decision ordering the Board of Medicine to issue a Certificate of Registration and/or license to practice medicine in the Philippines to respondent Yasuyuki Ota.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of reciprocity: The Court held that Republic Act (R.A.) No. 2382 and Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 223 require a foreign applicant to submit competent and conclusive documentary evidence, confirmed by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), showing that the applicant's country's existing laws permit Filipino citizens to practice medicine under the same rules and regulations governing its own citizens. The law does not require the foreign applicant to prove that the conditions for practice in their country are practically attainable by Filipinos, nor that a Filipino has already been granted a license or is actually practicing there. Respondent Ota submitted a copy of Japan's Medical Practitioners Law and a letter from Consul General Yabes, which indicated that while it is difficult for Filipinos to pass the Japanese medical board examination in Japanese, the Japanese government allows foreigners to practice medicine after complying with local requirements. The Court found that the absence of Filipino physicians practicing in Japan was due to the difficulty of the examination, not an absolute prohibition or impossibility, thus satisfying the reciprocity requirement. On the issue of whether the power is discretionary or ministerial: The Court distinguished the present case from Professional Regulation Commission v. De Guzman. In De Guzman, there were doubts regarding the integrity of test results, necessitating inquiry into the applicants' compliance. In this case, there were no such doubts about Ota's qualifications, internship, and passing the medical board examinations. The Court reiterated that Section 20 of R.A. No. 2382 uses the word "shall" regarding the issuance of certificates of registration, indicating a mandatory duty. Therefore, when an examinee satisfies all the legal requirements, the Board is obliged to issue the license. The power to issue the license, in this context, becomes ministerial once all conditions are met, making it compellable by mandamus.
Main Doctrine
The requirement for a foreign applicant to practice medicine in the Philippines is to submit competent and conclusive documentary evidence, confirmed by the Department of Foreign Affairs, showing that the applicant's country's existing laws permit Filipino citizens to practice medicine under the same rules and regulations governing its own citizens. It is not necessary to prove that a Filipino has already been granted a license or is actually practicing in the foreign country, nor that the conditions for practice are practically attainable, as long as the laws permit it.