ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 135941. July 12, 1999]
MA. CRISTINA APACIONADO, et al. vs. PROF. REGULATION COMM., et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 12, 1999.
G.R. No. 135941 (Ma. Cristina Apacionado, et al. vs. Professional Regulation Commission, et al.)
Petitioners assail the resolution of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Professional Regulation Commission which in turn sustained the findings of the Board of Optometry, thus, declaring petitioners liable for the violation of Republic Act 1998 known as the Old Optometry Law and Article III, Section 6 of the Code Ethics for Optometrist and consequently ordering petitioners' suspension from the practice of optometry for 2 years.
Petitioners are licensed optometrist employed by Acebedo Optical and temporarily assigned in Tuguegarao, Cagayan wherein Acebedo was conducing a promotional advertising campaign entitled "Libreng Konsulta sa Mata: Reading Glasses P60.00" in which leaflets and streamers announcing the promotion, radio advertisements, and mobile promotion using a company vehicle with sound system and streamers were utilized.
Private respondents Samahan ng mga Optometrist sa Pilipinas filed a complaint with the Office of the Mayor of Tuguegarao seeking to enjoin petitioners from conducting said activites. Upon endorsement of the complaint to the Board of Optometry (Board), an administrative case for unethical and/or unprofessional conduct was filed against petitioners wherein the Board rendered the assailed decision.
Displeased, petitioners appealed to the Professional Regulations Commission (PRC) which affirmed the decision of the Board. The petition before the Court of Appeals also proved unavailing.
Thus, the instant petition which must likewise fail.
The Court finds the decision of the Court of Appeals to be in accordance with the law. The Rules and Regulations of the Board of Examiners for optometry are quite explicit, and Rule 56 provides:
Rule 56. Acts Constituting Unprofessional Conduct.- It shall be considered unprofessional for any registered optometrist:
(1) To make optometric examinations outside of his regular clinic, unless he shall have received an unsolicited written request by the person or persons to be examined;
(2) To advertise a price or prices or spectacle frames, mountings, or opthalmic lenses and other opthalmic devices used in the practice of Optometry and to be associated with, or remain in the employ of, any person who does such advertising;
x x x
x x x
x x x
(4) To advertise 'free examination," "examination included," "discounts," "installments," "wholesale and retail," or similar words and phrases which would tend to remove the spirit of professionalism;
. . .
(11) To use Mobile Units for conducting refraction in any area ten (10) kilometers of a Municipality.
Likewise, Section 6 of the Code of Ethics for optometrist states:
SEC. 6. The following are deemed among others, to be unethical and are deemed to constitute unprofessional conduct:
c. Performing optometric examination outside of the regular office, unless he shall have received unsolicited request to make such an examination.
u. To use Mobile Units for conducting refraction in any area ten (10) kilometers of a Municipality.
These provisions petitioners, through Acebedo, were found to have violated.
Petitioners cannot deny that it was their skills as optometrist as well as their licenses which Acebedo used in order to enable itself to render itself to render optometrist services to its clientele. Under such arrangements, petitioners acted as tools of Acebedo so that the latter can offer the whole package of services to its clientele.
Corollarily, Republic Act No. 1998 pertinently provides:
SEC 20. Revocation or suspension of certificate.- The Board may, after giving proper notice and hearing to the party concerned, revoke or suspend a certificate of registration for the causes mentioned in the next preceding section, or for unprofessional conduct x x x.
Having knowingly allowed themselves to be used as tools in furtherance of unauthorized practice of optometry, petitioners are clearly liable for unethical and unprofessional practice of their profession. The Court, thus finds no error committed by the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
