Case Digest (G.R. No. 88265) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In SANTIAGO A. DEL ROSARIO et al. v. Hon. ALFREDO R. BENGZON, G.R. No. 88265, decided December 21, 1989, petitioners—officers of the Philippine Medical Association—sought to declare unconstitutional several provisions of the Generics Act of 1988 (R.A. No. 6675) and its implementing Administrative Order No. 62 (AO 62) issued by the Secretary of Health, respondent Alfredo R. Bengzon. They challenged Section 6(a) and (b) of R.A. 6675 requiring government health agencies to use generic terminology in procurement and all practitioners to write prescriptions using generic names (with optional brand names in parentheses); Section 12(b), (c), and (d) imposing graduated fines and suspensions for repeated violations; and Sections 4 and 7 (Phase 3) of AO 62 prescribing the treatment of “violative,” “erroneous,” and “impossible” prescriptions and setting a timetable for implementation. R.A. 6675 took effect on March 30, 1989, with penal sanctions deferred to January 1, 1990 by AO 76. The pe Case Digest (G.R. No. 88265) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Subject Matter
- Petitioners: Officers of the Philippine Medical Association filing a class suit on behalf of medical, dental, and veterinary practitioners.
- Respondent: Hon. Alfredo R. Bengzon, Secretary of the Department of Health, enforcer of the Generics Act of 1988 (Republic Act No. 6675) and Administrative Order No. 62, Series of 1989.
- Challenged Provisions
- Generics Act of 1988 (RA 6675)
- Section 6(a)–(b): Mandatory use of generic terminology by government health agencies and practitioners; prescriptions must use generic names (brand names optional in parentheses).
- Section 12(b)–(d): Graduated penalties for violations—fines ranging from ₱2,000 to ₱10,000 and suspension of professional licenses.
- Administrative Order No. 62 (Phase 3)
- Section 4: Rules on “violative” and “erroneous” prescriptions and sanctions on pharmacists.
- Section 7: Implementation timetable—sanctions effective September 1, 1989, postponed to January 1, 1990 by AO 76.
- Procedural History and Petitioners’ Contentions
- RA 6675 published March 15, 1989; took effect March 30, 1989; sanctions deferred to January 1, 1990.
- Petition filed as a declaratory relief action; converted by the Court into a petition for prohibition on public interest grounds.
- Main arguments:
- Section 6 creates unequal treatment between government and private practitioners (invalid class legislation).
- Section 4 of AO 62 and Section 6(d) of RA 6675 authorize drugstore personnel to substitute prescriptions, usurping doctors’ authority.
- Section 12’s fines and suspensions violate due process, contract rights, and the constitutional ban on excessive fines and cruel punishment.
Issues:
- Whether Sections 6(a) and (b) of RA 6675 deny equal protection by creating improper classifications between government and private practitioners.
- Whether Section 12(b)–(d) of RA 6675 imposes excessive fines or cruel and degrading punishment in violation of due process.
- Whether Phase 3, Sections 4 and 7 of Administrative Order No. 62 exceed the Secretary’s regulatory authority by:
- Allowing prescription substitution by non-professionals.
- Imposing an improper timetable for sanctions.
- Whether the Generics Act and AO 62 impair the physician-patient contract.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)