Facts:

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Doctors Rosa P. Alfafara, Vivian Dyhongpo, Maria Torres, and several other optometrists, who are members of the Samahan ng Optometrists sa Pilipinas-Cebu Chapter (hereafter referred to as “petitioners”), against Acebedo Optical Co., Inc. (hereafter referred to as “respondent”). The case was decided by the Supreme Court on April 17, 2002, under G.R. No. 148384. The initial suit arose in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Cebu City, where the petitioners sought an injunction to prevent the respondent from practicing optometry in Cebu. They claimed that Acebedo Optical had established several optical shops in Cebu that advertised “ready-to-wear” eyeglasses for sale at P60 each, along with free optometric services. The petitioners asserted that this violated the Optometry Law (Republic Act No. 1998) and the Code of Ethics for Optometrists.

Initially, the trial court dismissed the suit but later reinstated it upon the mo

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Petitioners, composed of individual optometrists including the named doctors, brought an injunctive suit on behalf of themselves and about 80 other members of the Samahan ng Optometrists sa Pilipinas-Cebu Chapter.
• The suit was directed against Acebedo Optical, Co., Inc., alleging that the respondent, through its hired optometrists, was engaging in the unauthorized practice of optometry in Cebu by advertising and rendering optometric services.

Allegations and Controversial Acts

• Petitioners alleged that respondent opened several optical shops and promoted its business through various media (leaflets, newspapers, streamers, and loudspeakers) while offering ready-to-wear eyeglasses at a low price (P60.00 each) with free optometric consultations.
• They contended that the respondent’s use of licensed optometrists to perform eye examinations, prescribe ophthalmic lenses, prisms, contact lenses, and render other related services amounted to the unauthorized practice of optometry, violating RA No. 1998 and the Code of Ethics for Optometrists.
• Petitioners further argued that the case presented a pure question of law regarding the legality of a corporation hiring optometrists and that the issue was an exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement.

Procedural History and Trial Court’s Findings

• Initially, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Cebu City, dismissed the suit; however, on petitioners’ motion, the trial court reinstated the action, granted a preliminary injunction, and enjoined respondent from employing practices that were alleged to induce the unauthorized practice of optometry.
• The trial court also considered, but rejected, respondent’s defenses including jurisdictional issues, allegations of res judicata (due to earlier similar suits), the requirement to implead the hired optometrists as indispensable parties, and the claim of forum-shopping by petitioners.

Stipulated Facts and Evidence Presented

• During the pre-trial conference, both parties stipulated key facts:
• Petitioners were duly licensed optometrists and members of the Samahan ng Optometrists sa Pilipinas (SOP)-Cebu Chapter, which is affiliated with a national organization.
• The SOP-Cebu Chapter operated a program (aSight Saving Montha) that provided free consultations, paralleling a nationwide SOP initiative.
• Respondent, a corporation operating several retail outlets in Cebu, was selling optical products, including aready-to-wear eyeglasses.
• Respondent’s promotional activities during the opening of its new branches were clearly laid out and involved the hiring of optometrists.
• Evidence included advertisements in newspapers and posters, as well as witness testimony regarding the purchase of eyeglasses without a preceding eye examination, which was later linked to vision problems and a subsequent corrective consultation.

Respondent’s Contentions and Subsequent Proceedings

• In its defense, respondent argued that:
• Its promotional activities were simply part of the launch of new branches.
• The employment of licensed optometrists was incidental to its primary business of selling optical products and that these professionals acted within the confines of their employment.
• Optometrists were not indispensable parties because the controversy primarily concerned the respondent’s hiring practices.
• On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision:
• It held that hiring licensed optometrists did not equate to the corporate practice of optometry.
• It dismissed the complaint on grounds that there was no decision on the merits in prior administrative cases and that issues such as forum-shopping were unfounded.
• Petitioners further challenged the controlling precedent by citing the Apacionado case; however, the appellate and subsequent resolutions reiterated that while individual optometrists could be held liable for unprofessional conduct, the hiring of such professionals by a corporation did not constitute the unauthorized practice of optometry when viewed at an institutional level.

Issue:

• Whether the hiring of licensed optometrists by a corporation, such as Acebedo Optical, constitutes the unauthorized practice of optometry under the relevant law (RA No. 1998) and ethical regulations.
• Whether the actions of respondent’s hired optometrists, when rendering optometric services as part of a promotional campaign, can be attributed to the corporation, thereby making the corporation liable for the practice of optometry.
• Whether the optometrists employed by respondent should be impleaded as indispensable parties in the suit.
• Whether the petitioners’ actions in filing multiple suits and administrative complaints amounted to forum-shopping and if such conduct could bar their claims for injunctive relief.
• Whether the reliance on precedents, such as Samahan ng Optometrists sa Pilipinas, Ilocos Sur-Abra Chapter v. Acebedo International Corporation and Apacionado, sufficiently supports the ruling that the corporate hiring of optometrists does not equate to the direct practice of optometry by a non-natural entity.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)