Gomez v. Ventura
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dominador Gomez, a licensed physician, had his license to practice medicine and surgery revoked by the Board of Medical Examiners on March 30, 1926, following an investigation. Procedural History: Gomez filed a complaint seeking to annul the investigation proceedings and the decision revoking his license, to be restored to his previous status, and to have a new license issued. The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed his complaint. The Petition: Gomez appealed, raising several assignments of error concerning the authority of the Assistant Fiscal who filed the charges, the constitutionality and validity of Section 9 of Act No. 2381 (Opium Law), and the alleged repeal of said section.
Issue(s)
Whether Assistant Fiscal Alfonso Felix was authorized to institute administrative proceedings against Dr. Dominador Gomez before the Board of Medical Examiners. Whether Section 9 of Act No. 2381 (Opium Law) is valid and constitutional. Whether Section 9 of Act No. 2381 has been repealed by subsequent laws. Whether the action for annulment and restoration of license is the proper remedy, considering the nature of the powers exercised by the Board of Medical Examiners and the Secretary of the Interior.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, dismissing the complaint. The Court held that the Board of Medical Examiners had jurisdiction, Section 9 of Act No. 2381 is constitutional and valid, and the action was not the proper remedy.
Ratio Decidendi
On the authority of Assistant Fiscal Felix: The Court held that Section 780 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3111, permits charges for revocation of a certificate of registration to be preferred by any person, firm, or corporation, or by the Board itself. Therefore, the fact that the charges were filed by Assistant Fiscal Alfonso Felix did not deprive the Board of Medical Examiners of its jurisdiction. On the constitutionality of Section 9 of Act No. 2381: The Court ruled that Section 9 of the Opium Law is not unconstitutional. The provision penalizing physicians who prescribe opium for patients not requiring it is not foreign to the Act's purpose of prohibiting the unnecessary use of opium. This provision is a means to attain the Act's objective and is a valid exercise of the State's police power to protect public health and welfare. The Court cited previous rulings upholding the validity of the Opium Law. On the repeal of Section 9 of Act No. 2381: The Court found no express repeal of Section 9. It also held that there was no implied repeal, as the provisions of Section 9 are neither contrary to nor incompatible with Section 780 of the Administrative Code. The Court reasoned that the reenactment of provisions regarding revocation of licenses did not repeal the specific provision in the Opium Law, and that the enumeration of grounds for unprofessional conduct in later amendments did not exclude other existing grounds. On the propriety of Mandamus: The Court concluded that the action was essentially a mandamus proceeding. It reiterated the general rule that mandamus will not lie to control or review the discretionary acts of executive officers and boards. The powers vested in the Board of Medical Examiners and the Secretary of the Interior to suspend or revoke licenses partake of a quasi-judicial character and involve discretion, thus they cannot be compelled by mandamus to act in a particular way.
Main Doctrine
The exercise of quasi-judicial powers by administrative bodies, such as the Board of Medical Examiners, involving discretion, cannot be controlled by mandamus. Furthermore, charges for revocation of a medical license may be preferred by any person, including a public officer, and the validity of the Opium Law, including its provisions on the prescription of opium by physicians, has been upheld.