Title
Del Rosario vs. Bengzon
Case
G.R. No. 88265
Decision Date
Dec 21, 1989
Medical professionals challenged the Generics Act's constitutionality, alleging unfair penalties and favoritism; the Supreme Court upheld the law, affirming its public health benefits and affordability goals.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 189218)

Petitioners

Named petitioners are officers of the PMA acting for physicians, dentists, and veterinarians of like persuasion who contend that selected statutory and regulatory provisions unconstitutionally restrict prescribing practices, improperly permit substitution by drug outlets, and subject practitioners to excessive or arbitrary penal sanctions.

Respondent

The public respondent is the Secretary of Health, who promulgated Administrative Order No. 62 to implement the Generics Act and later issued Administrative Order No. 76 to postpone the sanctioning phase. The DOH defends the statutory scheme as a valid public-health measure designed to institutionalize generic prescribing and ensure affordable access to therapeutically equivalent medicines.

Key Dates

  • Administrative Order No. 62 dated March 9, 1989 (implementing rules).
  • Full text of RA No. 6675 published March 15, 1989; law took effect March 30, 1989.
  • Administrative Order No. 76 dated August 28, 1989 postponed the effective date of sanctions to January 1, 1990.
  • Judicial decision rendered December 21, 1989.

Applicable Law

The court applied the 1987 Philippine Constitution (as the operative constitution at the time of decision) in assessing the constitutionality of RA No. 6675 and its implementing orders. The challenged statutory provisions include Section 6 (pars. (a) and (b)) and Section 12 (pars. (b), (c) and (d)) of the Generics Act; the administrative provisions attacked include Sections 4 and 7, Phase 3 of Administrative Order No. 62 and related provisions of Administrative Order No. 63.

Relief Sought and Issues Presented

Petitioners sought declaratory relief (treated by the Court as a petition for prohibition) that the identified statutory and administrative provisions are unconstitutional. Principal contentions alleged: (1) invalid class legislation and unequal treatment between government and private practitioners under Section 6; (2) unlawful delegation of therapeutic choice to drugstore personnel and improper substitution under Section 6(d) and Administrative Order No. 62; (3) impairment of the physician–patient contract and professional autonomy by prohibiting “No Substitution” prescriptions; and (4) unconstitutionally excessive fines and cruel or degrading sanctions under Section 12’s graduated penalties.

Procedural Posture

Although captioned as an action for declaratory relief (a remedy outside this Court’s original jurisdiction), the Court, considering the significant public interest, reframed and entertained the challenge as a petition for prohibition. The Court examined the law’s text, implementing rules, and the DOH’s explanations in resolving the constitutional challenges.

Court’s Interpretation of Section 6(a) and (b)

The Court rejected petitioners’ contention that Section 6 creates unequal treatment between government and private practitioners. It analyzed the provisions’ language and purpose: Section 6(a) prescribes the use of generic terminology in government health-agency transactions (purchasing, prescribing, dispensing, administering) and thus addresses government operations; Section 6(b) expressly governs “all medical, dental and veterinary practitioners, including private practitioners,” and permits inclusion of the brand name if desired. The Court concluded both government and private practitioners are governed by the same rule as to prescriptions and that petitioners’ claim of class legislation rests on a misreading of the statute.

Court’s Analysis on Substitution and the Role of Drug Outlets

The Court found that neither Section 6(d) of the Generics Act nor Administrative Order No. 62 authorizes pharmacists or sales personnel to unilaterally substitute prescribed medicines in derogation of professional competence. The statutory scheme requires drug outlets to inform buyers of all generically equivalent products and their prices and to post lists of equivalent products for transparency; Administrative Order No. 62 imposes duties on pharmacists to report and not to fill “violative prescriptions” (e.g., where the generic name is absent or illegible) and to fill but report “erroneous prescriptions.” Administrative Order No. 63 further prohibits drug outlets from favoring, suggesting, or imposing a particular brand. The Court emphasized that the drugstore attendant’s role is informational—facilitating the patient’s informed choice between brand-name and generic equivalents—rather than decisional expertise supplanting the prescriber.

Purpose and Public Policy Underlying the Generics Act

The Court detailed the legislative purposes as articulated in the Act and by the DOH: to promote and require generic terminology across procurement, prescription, dispensing and marketing; to ensure supply of affordable drugs and make them available to indigent patients; to encourage use of therapeutically equivalent generics through rational procurement and distribution; to emphasize scientific (active-ingredient) bases for drug use; and to promote drug safety by minimizing harmful duplication and interactions. The Court endorsed these aims as consonant with constitutional mandates to protect and promote the right to health and to make essential goods and health services available at affordable cost (citing Section 15, Article II, and Section 11, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution).

On the “No Substitution” Prohibition and Contractual Arguments

The Court held that prohibiting “no substitution” instructions is a valid, reasonable regulation to prevent circumvention of the law and to preserve patient choice for less expensive but therapeutically equivalent drugs. The Court rejected the contention that the Act impairs any contractual oblig

...continue reading

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.

About Privacy Terms