Title
Sobrejuanite-Flores vs. Pilando, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 251816
Decision Date
Nov 23, 2021
A psychologist’s application for licensure without examination was denied due to insufficient work experience and failure to complete required workshops; SC upheld the IRR’s constitutionality.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-30642)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Legislative and Regulatory Framework
    • Republic Act No. 10029 (Philippine Psychology Act of 2009)
      • Requires passing of a licensure examination to practice psychology.
      • Section 16 grants registration without examination within three years for applicants meeting (a) doctoral + 3 years experience, (b) master’s + 5 years, or (c) bachelor’s + 10 years + updated professional education.
    • IRR of RA 10029 (Board Resolution No. 003-12, Nov. 28, 2012)
      • Implements Section 16: sets cut-off filing until May 21, 2015.
      • Defines “professional education in various psychology-related functions” as completion of at least 100 hours of workshops/training in the last five years before June 2, 2010.
  • Petitioner’s Application and Administrative Proceedings
    • Florentina Caoyong Sobrejuanite-Flores applied on May 7, 2015 for registration without examination under Section 16(c).
    • The Board of Psychology (BOP) denied for:
      • Only six years work experience as a psychologist (2004–2010) vs. required ten.
      • Failure to submit proof of 100 hours of updating workshops/training (2005–2010).
    • PRC denied her final appeal and motion for reconsideration affirming the BOP findings.
  • Judicial Proceedings
    • Petition for Review under Rule 43 filed with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 150841).
    • CA Decision (May 21, 2019):
      • Upheld IRR Section 16(c) as valid.
      • Affirmed that petitioner failed to prove ten years of experience and 100 hours of workshops.
      • Rejected equal protection challenge to the 100-hour requirement.
    • Petition for review on certiorari filed with the Supreme Court, arguing that the 100-hour requirement:
      • Is an additional condition not found in the statute.
      • Violates due process and equal protection.

Issues:

  • Did the IRR’s Section 16(c) exceed the legislative delegation under RA 10029 by imposing an extra 100-hour requirement not in the statute?
  • Does the 100-hour updating training requirement violate:
    • The completeness test and sufficient standard test for valid subordinate legislation?
    • The constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection?

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.