Case Summary (G.R. No. 166097)
Procedural History
• August 1992: Respondent passed the Philippine Medical Board Examinations.
• March 8, 1993: Board of Medicine denied his license application for lack of “genuine reciprocity” with Japan.
• June 24, 1993 (amended February 14, 1994): Respondent filed a petition for Certiorari and Mandamus before the RTC, impleading both the Board and the PRC.
• October 19, 2003: RTC ordered issuance of Certificate of Registration and license, finding reciprocity established.
• November 16, 2004: CA affirmed the RTC decision.
• July 14, 2008: Supreme Court denied petition for review for lack of merit.
Facts of the Case
- Respondent completed internship at Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center.
- PRC required an affidavit of undertaking and proof of reciprocity before issuance of license.
- Respondent submitted authenticated English translation of Japan’s Medical Practitioners Law (Articles 2 and 11).
- Despite passing the board, the Board of Medicine contended Japan offered no practical path for Filipinos to obtain a license and denied the application.
- Respondent presented a Japanese Government publication and a letter from Consul General Yabes confirming that Japan’s laws permit foreigners (including Filipinos) to practice medicine, though none had succeeded yet due to language barriers.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution (Article VIII: judicial review; Article III: due process and equal protection)
• Republic Act No. 2382 (Medical Act of 1959), Section 9 (qualifications include proof of reciprocity) and Section 20 (mandatory issuance of certificates upon compliance)
• Presidential Decree No. 223, Section (j) (PRC may grant foreign registration if requirements are substantially same and reciprocal)
• Medical Practitioners Law of Japan, Article 2 (national examination and license requirement) and Article 11 (eligibility criteria, including foreign graduates recognized for equivalent academic and technical ability)
Legal Issue
Whether respondent established the existence of reciprocity in the practice of medicine between the Philippines and Japan, thereby mandating issuance of his license under the Medical Act of 1959 and PD 223.
Petitioners’ Arguments
- Documents do not show that Japan’s licensing conditions are practical or attainable by a Filipino.
- Ambiguities in Japan’s law (School Education Laws, criteria used by Japanese authorities, eligibility for preparatory tests) were unclarified.
- No Filipino has ever obtained a medical license in Japan, demonstrating absence of practical reciprocity.
- Under Professional Regulation Commission v. De Guzman, PRC’s power to grant licenses is discretionary and not subject to mandamus.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Articles 2 and 11 of Japan’s Medical Practitioners Law, confirmed by DFA-authenticated documents and Consul General’s letter, show Japan permits foreigners (including Filipinos) to practice medicine upon satisfying requirements.
- Reciprocity does not require prior successful licensure of a Filipino in Japan; it suffices that Japanese law does not exclude Filipinos.
- Section 20 of R.A. No. 2382 imposes a mandatory duty (“shall issue”) on the Board once requirements, including reciprocity, are met.
Rulings Below
• RTC: Found respondent’s evidence sufficient to establish reciprocity; granted mandamus ordering Board to issue license.
• CA: Affirmed RTC, holding that respondent met statutory requirements and that the Board’s refusal was arbitrary.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Reciprocity
- Statutory Standard: R.A. 2382 § 9 and PD 223(j) require only “competent and conclusive documentary evidence … showing that [foreign country’s] laws permit” Filipinos to practice under the same rules, not proof of actual practice by Filipinos.
- Evidence Sufficiency: Respondent’s authenticated translation of Japan’s Medical Practitioners Law, Japanese Government publication indicating foreign physicians practice there, and Consul General’s letter—despite noting language difficulty for Filipinos—demonstrated that Japanese law does not bar Filipino applicants.
- Practical Attainability: Neither R.A. 2382 nor PD 223(j) imposes an additional requirement that the conditions be practically attainable; they focus solely on the legal permission.
Supreme
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 166097)
Facts
- Yasuyuki Ota is a Japanese national, married to a Filipina, and has resided in the Philippines for over ten years.
- He graduated Doctor of Medicine from Bicol Christian College of Medicine on April 21, 1991.
- He completed a one-year postgraduate internship at Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center.
- Ota applied for the Philippine medical board exams and, per PRC requirement, submitted an affidavit undertaking to prove reciprocity before practice.
- He furnished an authenticated English translation of Japan’s Medical Practitioners Law, secured by the Philippine Consul General in Japan.
- Ota took and passed the August 1992 Medical Board Examinations.
- On March 8, 1993, the Board of Medicine denied his license application, claiming no genuine reciprocity in Japanese law.
Procedural History
- June 24, 1993: Ota filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus before RTC Manila, later amended to implead the PRC.
- October 19, 2003: RTC Branch 22, Manila, ruled in Ota’s favor, finding reciprocity established and ordering issuance of his medical license.
- November 16, 2004: Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision.
- Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
Issue
- Whether the CA erred in holding that Ota established reciprocity in the practice of medicine between the Philippines and Japan, thereby obliging the PRC to issue his license.
Petitioners’ Contentions
- Ota failed to prove practical and attainable reciprocity requirements for a foreign applicant under Japanese law.
- Ambiguities exist in Japan’s Medical Practitioners Law regarding educational criteria, ministerial standards, and eligibility for preparatory tests.
- No Filipino has ever obtained a Japanese medical license; thus, reciprocity is illusory.
- The PRC’s power to grant medical licenses is discretionary, n