Case Digest (G.R. No. 7262)
Facts:
Francisco Gonzalez y Salazar v. The Board of Pharmacy, Created by Act No. 597, and the Secretary‑Treasurer of Said Board, G.R. No. 7262, October 21, 1911, Supreme Court, Moreland, J., writing for the Court.
The plaintiff, Francisco Gonzalez y Salazar, sought a writ of mandamus compelling the Board of Pharmacy (created by Act No. 597) to issue him a certificate or license authorizing him to practice pharmacy in the Philippine Islands. The matter reached the Court on a demurrer to the complaint; the present decision arises from the Court’s consideration of that demurrer.
In his complaint the plaintiff alleged that he was a resident of the Philippine Islands and, prior to the ratification of the Treaty of Paris, a graduate (alumnus) of the College of Pharmacy of Spain; that he had pursued and completed the studies prescribed by that college and possessed the qualifications required of pharmacists in the Islands; and that from 1887 to 1895 he had been duly registered and licensed to practice in the Province of Antique, operating his own drug store. He asserted that under the Spanish regime graduates of Spanish pharmacy colleges enjoyed the same professional consideration and force of certificate as graduates of the University of Santo Tomas (UST).
The complaint further alleged that the plaintiff had, prior to suit, demanded that the Board issue him a license or certificate of registry under section 9 of Act No. 597, but the Board refused, alleging that he had not registered within the one‑hundred‑and‑twenty–day period prescribed by section 11 and did not possess the qualifications prescribed by the statute. As excuse for failing to register within 120 days, the plaintiff alleged he was in the interior of Negros during that period, detained for reasons beyond his control and unaware of the registration requirement; he said he subsequently petitioned the Governor‑General to permit his registration and submitted certificates by pharmacists of Panay and Negros attesting to his prior licensure, but had been unable to secure registration.
The complaint did not allege that the plaintiff had passed the examination prescribed by Act No. 597, that he was a graduate of the UST College of Pharmacy, or that he was engaged in the practice of pharmacy at the time of the passage of Act No. 597. The demurrer maintained the complaint failed to state a cause of action because, under the Act, ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the complaint state facts sufficient to establish a clear legal right in the plaintiff and a clear legal duty in the Board to issue him a license by mandamus?
- Do the provisions of Act No. 597 (particularly Secs. 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 16) permit the Board to issue a certificate to the plaintiff on the facts alleged (i.e., by reason of prior Spanish graduation or prior licensure)?
- Can the plaintiff's failure to register within the 120‑day transitional period of Sec. 11 be excused so as to ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)