Title
People vs. Buenviaje
Case
G.R. No. 22945
Decision Date
Mar 3, 1925
Jovita Buenviaje, a chiropractor, was convicted for practicing medicine without registration and using the title "Dra." in Manila, 1923. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling, affirming chiropractic as medical practice under the law.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 171582)

Facts:

  • Parties and Charges
    • Plaintiff/Appellee: The People of the Philippine Islands.
    • Defendant/Appellant: Jovita V. Buenviaje, charged with violating the Medical Act by practicing medicine without a certificate of registration, manipulating Regino Noble’s body for compensation, and advertising herself as “Dra.” to imply a medical doctorate.
  • Procedural History and Trial Admissions
    • Demurrer to the information on grounds of charging multiple offenses and improper form was overruled; defendant pleaded not guilty.
    • At trial, defendant admitted that on or about June 1, 1923:
      • She had no Board of Medical Examiners certificate.
      • She performed a chiropractic “thrust” on Regino Noble’s spinal column for P1 in her office at No. 712 Calle Asuncion, Binondo, Manila.
      • She advertised as “doctor of chiropractic” on business cards, letterheads, door signs, and in the newspaper El Debate (April 29, 1923), prefixing “Dra.” to her name.
      • She held a chiropractic diploma from the American University School of Chiropractic, Chicago (Aug. 13, 1919).
    • Trial court found her guilty under section 2678 of the Administrative Code, imposed a P300 fine (or subsidiary imprisonment), and costs. Defendant appealed with four assignments of error.

Issues:

  • Validity of the Demurrer
    • Whether the information improperly charges more than one offense.
    • Whether the information conforms to statutory form requirements.
  • Scope of “Practice of Medicine”
    • Whether chiropractic manipulations fall within the statutory definition (Sec. 770, Administrative Code).
    • Whether chiropractic constitutes a distinct profession outside the Medical Law.
  • Legality of Examination Requirements
    • Whether requiring chiropractors to pass the medical examination prescribed in sections 776 and 778 is unreasonable.
    • Whether such requirements violate equal protection or liberty under the Constitution.
  • Unauthorized Use of Title “Doctor”
    • Whether Sec. 783’s prohibition on unauthorized “doctor” titles applies to chiropractic practitioners.
    • The legal effect of representing oneself as a “doctor of chiropractic.”
  • Constitutionality of Act No. 3111
    • Whether its title sufficiently expresses its subject matter under constitutional requirements.
    • Whether it impermissibly embraces more than one subject.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.