Gonzalez y Salazar vs. Board of Pharmacy

Factual Background

The plaintiff alleged that he was a resident of the Philippine Islands and that, prior to the ratification of the Treaty of Paris, he had been an alumnus of the College of Pharmacy of Spain, having completed the studies required for graduation and possessed the qualifications required of pharmacists in the Philippine Islands. He further alleged that from 1887 to 1895 he had been duly registered and licensed to practice pharmacy in the Province of Antique, Panay, and that during that period he actually practiced by operating and conducting his own drug store. He averred that his earlier license had never been revoked or cancelled.

To justify his claim, the plaintiff alleged that during the Spanish regime pharmacists who were graduates like himself enjoyed the same professional rights and obligations as graduates of the University of Santo Tomas and that their certificates and licenses carried the same force and effect. He stated that, prior to the commencement of the action, he demanded in due form that the Board issue to him a license and a certificate of registry as a practicing pharmacist under section 9 of Act No. 597, and he alleged that the Board refused. The Board’s refusal was allegedly premised on the plaintiff’s failure to register as required by section 11 of the Act and on its view that he did not possess the qualifications prescribed by the statute.

The complaint also attempted to explain why the plaintiff had not registered within the 120 days from the date of passage required under section 11. The plaintiff alleged that when the Act took effect and during the succeeding 120 days, he was detained in the interior of the Island of Negros for reasons beyond his control and was not informed of the section 11 requirements. He claimed that, once aware, he petitioned the Governor-General for permission to register even after the lapse of the time period, and that the petition was supported by certifications signed by pharmacists from Panay and Negros stating that he was a licensed pharmacist and that his location prevented compliance with the Act’s requirements. He alleged that, despite these efforts, he could not obtain registration as of the time of filing.

Statutory Framework Under Act No. 597

The plaintiff’s right, as claimed, depended on the statutory scheme of Act No. 597. The Act authorized the Board to issue different forms of certificates, including a certificate as a registered pharmacist, a certificate as a second-class pharmacist (practicante de farmacia), an apprentice certificate, and a Chinese druggist certificate. It also declared that after a specified time—sixty days after the first meeting of the Board—it was unlawful to practice pharmacy in any branch in the Philippine Islands without a certificate of registration from the Board.

The Act provided special rules for persons who held specified academic titles prior to the ratification of the Treaty of Paris. Section 9 allowed an applicant who had received the degree of licentiate in pharmacy from the University of Santo Tomas in Manila to be granted a certificate of registration as pharmacist without further examination, upon payment of the registration fee. Sections 10 and 11 dealt with persons holding the title of practicante de farmacia from the University of Santo Tomas prior to the Treaty of Paris, and with persons already engaged in the practice of pharmacy at the time of the Act’s passage who were required, within one hundred and twenty days from the date of passage, to register with the secretary-treasurer and pay the usual fee, with a consequence that those who failed to comply had to appear before the Board and pass a satisfactory examination before resuming lawful practice.

The Court also discussed section 16, which established the general pathway for new entrants after the passage of the Act and limited second-class issuance, while requiring applicants to take examinations and submit proof of practical experience and educational qualification, with specific provisos for certain University of Santo Tomas graduates on a defined date. The Court’s discussion emphasized that, under the provisions quoted and considered together, the statutory permission to practice was confined to defined classes and that noncompliance carried legal consequences including revocation or termination of authority to practice.

Procedural History: Demurrer and Submission

The action proceeded through the interposition of a demurrer to the complaint. The plaintiff’s complaint sought mandamus to compel the Board to issue a certificate or license that would authorize him to practice pharmacy. On demurrer, the Court examined whether the complaint alleged facts sufficient to show a clear legal right in the plaintiff to the demanded certificate and an imperative duty on the part of the Board to perform the act requested.

The Parties’ Contentions

The plaintiff maintained that the Board had refused to fulfill a duty allegedly imposed by law, and that he had suffered damage from the Board’s refusal. He invoked his prior education in the College of Pharmacy of Spain, his past registration and licensure from 1887 to 1895, and his asserted entitlement under Act No. 597, particularly the framework that he claimed should have resulted in issuance of the relevant certificate without further examination.

The defendants, through the demurrer posture, contended that the complaint did not establish the legal elements required for mandamus. The Court’s assessment focused on the absence of qualifying statutory facts alleged by the plaintiff, including whether he met the specific University of Santo Tomas requirements for the special treatment in the Act and whether he fell within the transitional registration class under section 11.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

In evaluating the complaint, the Court treated the mandamus standard as controlling. Mandamus, it held, required that the plaintiff possess a clear legal right to the act demanded and that the defendants had an imperative duty to perform the act. The writ would not issue in doubtful cases. It would not compel an official to do an act that the official had no legal duty to do, or to refrain from doing an act that the law required to be withheld. The writ was not a device to confer powers or impose duties; it was only a command to exercise an existing power and perform an existing duty mandated by law.

The Court then analyzed the statutory scheme of Act No. 597 as it related to the plaintiff. It reasoned that, under the Act’s prohibitory rule in section 7, practice of pharmacy by persons outside the Act’s defined authorized classes was illegal. It further explained that the Act revoked existing licenses unless the provisions allowing continuation were properly complied with. Under the transitional arrangement, licenses not continued through proper procedure within the 120-day period were ipso facto revoked and terminated.

Crucially, the Court observed that the complaint did not allege that the plaintiff passed the examination required by law, and it did not allege that he was a graduate of the College of Pharmacy of the University of Santo Tomas. It also noted that the complaint did not aver that he was engaged in the practice of pharmacy at the time of the Act’s passage, nor that he received, or even applied for, a certificate during the one hundred and twenty days specified in section 11. The Court stressed that the plaintiff’s own assertions, and the arguments of counsel, confirmed these omissions. The complaint, as it appeared, affirmatively showed that the plaintiff had not passed the examination required by law and was not a University of Santo Tomas pharmacy graduate, and that he was not engaged in practice at the time of the Act’s pa