Facts:

The case involves petitioners Annie Sand, Lydia Valdes, Luz Sabas, Josefina A. Mendoza, and Rosario A. Ordiz, who serve as the Chairman and members of the Board of Examiners for Nurses. The respondents are the Abad Santos Educational Institution, School of Nursing, and Hon. Walfrido de los Angeles, the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch IV, Quezon City. The events leading to the case began when the Abad Santos School of Nursing filed a petition for declaratory relief on September 18, 1968, seeking a declaration that Article VIII, Rule 69, Section 5 of the rules and regulations adopted by the Board of Examiners for Nurses on July 27, 1967, was void, illegal, and ineffective. The regulation in question mandated periodic inspections of nursing schools and barred graduates from schools found to be sub-standard from taking the nurses' examination. The lower court ruled on June 24, 1969, that while the Board had the authority to promulgate such rules, the reg...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Petitioners: Annie Sand, Lydia Valdes, Luz Sabas, Josefina A. Mendoza, and Rosario A. Ordiz, in their capacity as Chairman and Members of the Board of Examiners for Nurses.
   • Respondents: Abad Santos Educational Institution, School of Nursing, and Hon. Walfrido de los Angeles, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch IV, Quezon City.

2. Background:

   • The case arose from an action for declaratory relief filed by Abad Santos School of Nursing on September 18, 1968, challenging the validity of Article VIII, Rule 69, Section 5 of the Rules and Regulations adopted by the Board of Examiners for Nurses on July 27, 1967.
   • The challenged regulation provided for periodic inspection of nursing schools and barred graduates of sub-standard schools from admission to the nurses' examination or registration as registered nurses.

3. Lower Court Decision:

   • The respondent court ruled on June 24, 1969, that the regulation could only apply to new nursing schools established after the promulgation of the rules and not to existing schools already accredited by the Bureau of Private Schools. It declared the regulation "void, illegal, and of no effect" against the respondent school and its graduates.

4. Petition to the Supreme Court:

   • The petitioners sought a reversal of the lower court's decision, arguing that the regulation was valid and applicable to all nursing schools, including existing ones.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Statutory Authority:

   • The Philippine Nursing Act (Republic Act No. 877, as amended) expressly empowered the Board of Examiners for Nurses to promulgate rules and regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act. This included the authority to inspect nursing schools and ensure compliance with minimum standards.

2. Retroactive Application:

   • The regulation was not retroactive but prospective in nature. It applied to all nursing schools, regardless of when they were established, to ensure that they maintained the required standards.

3. Exercise of Police Power:

   • The regulation was a valid exercise of the State's police power to protect public health and welfare by ensuring that only qualified graduates of nursing schools were allowed to take the State examination and practice nursing.

4. No Violation of Due Process:

   • The regulation was not arbitrary or oppressive. It provided a reasonable period (one year) for deficient schools to make necessary improvements before their graduates would be barred from the nurses' examination.

5. Coordination with Other Agencies:

   • The Court dismissed the speculative concern about conflicting findings between the Board of Examiners for Nurses and the Bureau of Private Education, noting that both agencies were expected to act responsibly and coordinate their efforts under the supervision of the President.