Case Digest (G.R. No. 122241)
Facts:
Board of Optometry, represented by its Chairman, Dr. Primitiva Y. Perez‑Sison, Professional Regulation Commission, represented by its Commissioner, Hermogenes P. Pobre, Department of Health, represented by its Secretary, Dr. Hilarion M. Ramiro, Bureau of Foods and Drugs, represented by its Director, Dr. Quintin L. Kintanar, Department of Budget and Management, represented by its Secretary, Salvador M. Enriquez, Jr., and Bureau of Higher Education, represented by its Director, Mona D. Valisno, petitioners vs. Hon. Angel B. Colet, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 29, Acebedo Optical Company, Inc., Optometry Practitioner Association of the Philippines (OPAP), Cenevis Optometrist Association (COA), Association of Christian‑Muslim Optometrist (ACMO), Southern Mindanao Optometrist Association of the Phils., Inc. (SMOAP), and Republica A. Panol, G.R. No. 122241, July 30, 1996, Supreme Court Third Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Congress reconciled House Bill No. 14100 and Senate Bill No. 1998 into the Reconciled Bill that was approved by both Houses and signed into law as R.A. No. 8050 on 7 June 1995. On 31 July 1995 several private actors — Acebedo Optical Co., Inc., various optometrist associations and named individuals (private respondents) — filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 29, Manila, Civil Case No. 95‑74770 seeking declaratory relief, prohibition and injunction and praying for a temporary restraining order against enforcement of R.A. No. 8050 and any Code of Ethics under it.
The petition alleged legislative tampering in the Reconciled Bill, danger to public health from permitting optometrists’ use of diagnostic pharmaceutical agents (DPAs), unlawful delegation by allowing penalties in implementing rules, suppression of truthful advertising, and vagueness. The petition’s caption named several associations and presidents, but the body lacked allegations on the juridical existence and addresses of those associations; certifications from the PRC and SEC showed some named individuals were not licensed optometrists and some associations were not SEC‑registered.
The RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order on 1 August 1995 and set the preliminary injunction for hearing. After written submissions, Judge Angel V. Colet granted a writ of preliminary injunction on 25 August 1995 (ordered issued 1 September 1995), enjoining petitioners from enforcing or implementing R.A. No. 8050, finding prima facie showing of injury to public and private rights and relying on authorities including Tanada v. Tuvera. The petitioners (government agencies and the Board) then filed a spec...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the private respondents have locus standi to question the constitutionality of R.A. No. 8050?
- Was there a valid cause of action / justiciable controversy to sustain the RTC’s issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)