Case Digest (G.R. No. L-25018) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Arsenio Pascual, Jr. v. Board of Medical Examiners (G.R. No. L-25018, May 26, 1969), petitioner-appellee Arsenio Pascual, Jr., a licensed physician, faced an administrative charge for alleged malpractice filed by Salvador and Enriqueta Gatbonton before the Board of Medical Examiners. On February 1, 1965, Pascual filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila an action for prohibition and a prayer for preliminary injunction to restrain the Board from compelling him to testify as the first witness in the proceedings. At the initial hearing counsel for the Gatbontons announced Pascual as their first witness, whereupon Pascual objected, invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination under the 1935 Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 1, Cl. 18). The Board nevertheless scheduled him to testify at the next hearing, prompting Pascual to seek injunctive relief. On February 9, 1965, the lower court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the Board from proceeding with the ad Case Digest (G.R. No. L-25018) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Administrative Charge and Objection
- Salvador and Enriqueta Gatbonton filed administrative Case No. 639 before the Board of Medical Examiners against Dr. Arsenio Pascual, Jr., alleging immorality and malpractice.
- At the initial hearing, complainants’ counsel announced his intention to call Dr. Pascual as the first witness. Dr. Pascual objected, invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination (Art. III, Sec. 1(18), Constitution).
- Petitioner’s Petition and Lower Court Relief
- On February 1, 1965, Dr. Pascual filed with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila a petition for prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction to restrain the Board from compelling him to testify.
- On February 9, 1965, the CFI issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the Board from further proceeding in the administrative case pending judicial resolution, conditioned on Dr. Pascual’s posting of a ₱500 bond.
- Respondent’s Answer, Intervention, and Lower Court Decision
- The Board of Medical Examiners admitted the factual allegations but contended that the privilege against self-incrimination attaches only when an actual incriminating question is posed, and that Dr. Pascual’s remedy was to object during testimony.
- Salvador and Enriqueta Gatbonton were allowed to intervene; they likewise maintained that the Board may compel witness attendance and that the privilege does not extend to administrative hearings.
- On August 2, 1965, the CFI granted the writ of prohibition, holding that the Board cannot compel Dr. Pascual to testify against himself.
Issues:
- Does the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination bar an administrative board from compelling a respondent to testify as a witness in a quasi-criminal proceeding for malpractice?
- Is the Board of Medical Examiners’ power to summon and interrogate witnesses sufficient to override the respondent’s right to remain silent and not be the first witness without consent?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)