THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE

ATTY. JUDY ANNE YUKI YULO, RN, MD

Section 8. Prerequisite to the
Practice of Medicine

No person shall engage in the

practice of medicine in the
Philippines unless he is:
1. at least twenty-one years of
age;
2. has satisfactorily passed the
corresponding Board
Examination; and
3. is a holder of a valid Certificate
of Registration duly issued to
him by the Board of Medical
Examiners
Sec. 10. Acts Constituting Practice of Medicine
A person shall be considered as engaged in the
practice of medicine

(a) who shall, for compensation, fee, salary or

reward in any form paid to him directly or
through another, or even without the same,
physically examine any person, and diagnose,
treat, operate or prescribe any remedy for
human disease, injury, deformity, physical, mental,
psychical condition or any ailment, real or
imaginary, regardless of the nature of the
remedy or treatment administered, prescribed or
recommended; or
 PEOPLE VS QUEBRAL GR 46094 9/27/39
FACTS: There is no question that the accused diagnosed, treated and
prescribed for certain diseases suffered by certain patients, from
whom he received money as compensation; but it is contended that
no evidence has been adduced to the effect that the accused had
thus practiced medicine "without having previously obtained the
proper certificate of registration issued by the Board of Medical
Examiners," as provided in section 770 of the Administrative Code.
ISSUE: WON the document issued by the Board is sufficient to
convict the accused.
HELD: YES. Official written statements are documents which are
admissible as evidence of its contents, under one of the exceptions to
the hearsay rule. Here, the lower court makes mention of Exhibit F-2
as showing that the accused is not a registered physician. That
document is signed by Jose Ma. Delgado, chairman of the Board of
Medical Examiners, wherein it is stated, in part, that "there is nothing
in the records of this Board to show that Mr. Fernando C. Quebral is a
registered physician." Such is a sufficient evidence to show that the
accused has been practicing medicine without the required
certificate of registration issued by the Board of Medical Examiners.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HATANI
G.R. Nos. 78813-14 November 8, 1993
FACTS: Agustina visited Maura, and requested malunggay leaves for her
16-year old daughter, Precila, who had high fever and LBM. Maura's
daughter, introduced Agustina to her husband, appellant herein, whom
she said was a medical doctor. Appellant gave her tablets to take and
administered two injections. It was appellant's diagnosis that Precila was
a drug addict and required further observation and treatment. Appellant
offered to attend to Precila at his house. When Agustina went to fetch
Precila, she found Precila and appellant both asleep and naked. She
hurriedly dressed up Precila and brought her home. Agustina narrated
the incident to Precila's oldest sister, Josefina, a nurse by profession.
Appellant also did the same to their sister, Wilma. Agustina and Josefina
brought Precila and Wilma to the Philippine Constabulary Headquarters
at Camp Crame, Quezon City, where Josefina and Wilma gave their
statements and were was physically examined by a doctor. After the
preliminary investigation, separate informations for rape and violation of
R.A. No. 2382 were filed. As to the Illegal practice of medicine, one of
the contentions of the appellant was that there was no proof of
payment.
ISSUE: WON proof of payment is an essential
element of Illegal practice of medicine.

HELD: NO. The law specifically punishes the act of

illegal practice of medicine whether or not done
for a fee. The evidence is overwhelming that
appellant actually treated and diagnosed Precila
and Wilma Borja. The positive testimony of
Agustina, Precila, Wilma and Josefina Borja; the
medico-legal reports which attest to the needle
marks; the Handwriting Identification Report; the
photographs showing assorted drugs and medical
equipment in appellant's room; and the chemistry
reports prove that appellant was engaged in the
practice of medicine. And as to his allegation that
there was no proof of payment, the law specifically
punishes said act whether or not done for a fee.
 CRISOSTOMO VS SEC G.R. Nos. 89095 & 89555 November 6, 1989
FACTS: Crisostomo group were the original stockholders of the United Doctors Medical
Center (UDMC). They owned approximately 40% of UDMC's outstanding capital stock, while
the 60% majority belonged to the members of the United Medical Staff Association (UMSA).
Despite their minority status, the Crisostomo group has managed UDMC from its inception.
In 1988, UDMC defaulted in paying its loan obligation of approximately P55 million to the DBP.
In the last quarter of 1987, UDMC's assets (principally its hospital) and those of the
Crisostomos which had been given as collateral to the DBP, faced foreclosure. To stave off the
threatened foreclosure, UDMC, persuaded the Yamadas
and Enatsu, both Japanese doctors to invest fresh capital
in UDMC. The wife of Enatsu, is a Filipina. They invested
approximately P57 million in UDMC. It had been agreed
that upon the latter's acquisition of the controlling
interest in UDMC, the corporation would be reorganized,
a special stockholders' meeting and board of directors'
meeting were scheduled to be held on August 20, 1988.
However, on the eve of the meeting, Sixto Crisostomo,
supposedly acting for himself, filed an SEC Case against Japanese
stockholders praying, among other things, (1) to stop the holding
of the stockholder's and board of directors' meetings; (2) to
disqualify the Japanese investors from holding a controlling
interest in UDMC and from being elected directors or officers of
UDMC. SEC denied petitioner's motion. Whereupon, he filed
this petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for
preliminary injunction alleging that the SEC abused its discretion
in allowing the Japanese group to have control of UDMC for it
will result in culpable violation of Constitutional prohibition
against foreigners practicing a profession in the Philippines
(Section 14, Article XII, 1987 Constitution).

ISSUE: WON allowing the Japanese group to have control of

UDMC is a culpable violation of Constitutional prohibition
against foreigners practicing a profession in the Philippines.
HELD: NO. The investments in UDMC of Doctors
Yamada and Enatsu do not violate the
Constitutional prohibition against foreigners
practising a profession in the Philippines (Section
14, Article XII, 1987 Constitution) for they do not
practice their profession (medicine) in the
Philippines, neither have they applied for a license
to do so. They only own shares of stock in a
corporation that operates a hospital. No law limits
the sale of hospital shares of stock to doctors only.
The ownership of such shares does not amount to
engaging (illegally,) in the practice of medicine, or,
nursing. If it were otherwise, the petitioner's
stockholding in UDMC would also be illegal.
(b) who shall by means of signs, cards,
advertisements, written or printed matter, or
through the radio, television or any other
means of communication, either offer or
undertake by any means or method to
diagnose, treat, operate or prescribe any
remedy for any human disease, injury,
deformity, physical, mental or psychical
condition; or
PEOPLE VS VENTURA G.R. No. L-15079 January 31, 1962
FACTS: By reason of certain complaints that the NBI had received
from the Philippine Federation of Private Medical Practitioners and
from the Board of Medical Examiners, the NBI sent its morgue
attendant Natayan to the clinic of the accused. Natayan was at that
time suffering from pains in his back and he asked the accused to see
his sickness. The accused attended to Natayan; wrote something on a
piece of paper; and then he told him that he (Natayan) 'was sick of
lumbago'. Thereupon, the accused asked Natayan to pay a certain
amount of money. Natayan then was given an enema of hot water by
and was asked to lie down on a table where his back was exposed to
a big bulb for around fifteen minutes and afterwards to a red colored
bulb for another ten minutes. Thereafter Natayan went back to the
accused, who told him to come back to his clinic for six consecutive
days. Thereafter, the NBI agents raided the place. The accused herein,
Guillermo I. Ventura, is not a duly registered masseur or a physician
qualified to practice medicine. He was charged with illegal practice of
medicine.
Ventura, testifying on his behalf admitted that for the past 35
years, he had been practicing as a naturopathic physician, "treating
human ailments without the use of drugs and medicines" and
employing in his practice "electricity, water and hand" without a
license to practice medicine; that during this time he had treated
500,000 patients, more or less about 90% of whom were healed,
and that he had studied drugless healing in the American
University, Chicago, Illinois for about four years. He also contended
that the Chairman of the Board of Medical Examiners had even
permitted him to serve for free in the Central Luzon Sanitarium in
Tala, Caloocan, Rizal which is an implied license to practice drugless
healing.

ISSUE: WON Ventura is not guilty of Illegal practice of Medicine on

the ground of the implied license to practice drugless healing.
HELD: NO, there is no such thing as implied license to
practice drugless healing by the mere fact that the
Chairman of the Board of Medical Examiners had
permitted appellant to serve free in the Central Luzon
Sanitarium in Tala, Caloocan, Rizal, or that countless
people persisted in engaging his services. For one thing,
these people might have contracted his services on the
mistaken notion that he was duly licensed to practice his
profession; for another, a repetition of illegal acts can
never make them legal.
 (c) who shall falsely use the title of M.D. after his name.
PEOPLE VS BUENVIAJE GR NO 22945, MARCH 3, 1925
The defendant is accused of the violation of the Medical Act, the
information alleging the said accused without having obtained from
the Board of Medical Examiners the corresponding certificate of
registration for the practice of medicine in the Philippine Islands,
voluntarily and for compensation, practiced medicine in the City of
Manila, treating and manipulating the head and body of Regino
Noble for the purpose of curing him of the ailments from which he
pretended to suffer, and advertising and offering her services as a
physician, by means of cards which she distributed and by
letterheads and signs which she exposed on the door of her office
and in newspapers which are published and circulated in the City of
Manila, in which cards, letterheads, signs and advertising she added
and prefixed to her name the letters `Dra.,' which is the abbreviation
of the word `doctor,' for the purpose of causing the public to believe
that she, the said defendant, had received the corresponding title of
doctor."
ISSUE: WON the use of the title “Doctor” may be
considered as an illegal practice of medicine.

HELD: YES. The appellant contends that the

prohibition in section 783 against the
unauthorized use of the title "doctor" must be
understood to refer to "Doctor of Medicine" and
has no application to doctors of chiropractic.
Under different circumstances that might possibly
be so, but where, as here, chiropractic is by
statute made a form of the practice of medicine, it
necessarily follows that a person holding himself
out as a doctor of chiropractic in legal effect
represents herself as a doctor of medicine.
Sec. 11. Exemptions. The preceding section shall not be
construed to affect :
(a) any medical student duly enrolled in an approved
medical college or school, or graduate under training,
serving without any professional fee in any government
or private hospital, provided that he render such service
under the direct supervision and control of a registered
physician;

(b) any legally registered dentist engaged exclusively in the

practice of dentistry;

(c) any duly registered masseur or physiotherapist, provided

that he applies massage or other physical means upon
written order or prescription of a duly registered
physician, or provided that such application of massage
or physical means shall be limited to physical or
muscular development;
(d) any duly registered optometrist who
mechanically fits or sells lenses, artificial eyes,
limbs or other similar appliances or who is
engaged in the mechanical examination of eyes
for the purpose of constructing or adjusting
eyeglasses, spectacles and lenses;

(e) any person who renders any service gratuitously

in cases of emergency, or in places where the
services of a duly registered physician, nurse or
midwife are not available;

(f) any person who administers or recommends any

household remedy as per classification of
existing Pharmacy Laws;
(g) any clinical psychologist, or mental
hygienist, in the performance of his
duties in regard to patients with
psychiatric problems, provided such
performance is done with the
prescription and direct supervision of
a duly registered physician, and

(h) prosthetists who fit artificial limbs

under the supervision of a registered
physician.
Sec. 12. Limited Practice Without Any
Certificate of Registration.

Certificates of registration shall not be required

of the following persons:

(a) Physicians and surgeons from other countries

called in consultation only and exclusively in
specific and definite case, or those attached to
international bodies or organizations assigned to
perform certain definite work in the Philippines,
provided they shall limit their practice to the
specific work assigned to them and provided
further they shall secure a previous
authorization from the Board of Medical
Examiners.
(b) Commissioned medical officers of the United
States Armed Forces stationed in the Philippines
while rendering service as such only for the
members of the said armed forces and within
the limit of their own respective territorial
jurisdiction.

(c) Foreign physicians employed as exchange

professors in special branches of medicine or
surgery whose service may, upon previous
authorization of the Board of Medical
Examiners, be necessary.
(d) Medical students who have completed
the first four years of medical course,
graduates of medicine and registered
nurses who may be given limited and
special authorization by the Secretary of
Health to render services during
epidemics or national emergencies
whenever the services of duly registered
physicians are not available. Such
authorization shall automatically cease
when the epidemic or national emergency
is declared terminated by the Secretary
of Health.
 GROUNDS FOR REPRIMAND, SUSPENSION, OR
REVOCATION OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
1. Conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction of
any criminal offense involving moral turpitude;
2. Immoral or dishonorable conduct;
3. Insanity;
4. Fraud in the acquisition of the certificate of
registration;
5. Gross negligence, ignorance or incompetence in the
practice of his or her profession resulting in an
injury to or death of the patient;
6. Addiction to alcoholic beverages or to any habit
forming drug rendering him or her incompetent to
practice his or her profession, or to any form of
gambling;
7. False or extravagant or unethical advertisements
wherein other things than his name, profession,
limitation of practice, clinic hours, office and home
address, are mentioned;
8. Performance of or aiding in any criminal
abortion;
9. Knowingly issuing any false medical certificate;
10.Issuing any statement or spreading any news or
rumor which is derogatory to the character and
reputation of another physician without
justifiable motive;
11.Aiding or acting as a dummy of an unqualified or
unregistered person to practice medicine;
12.Violation of any provision of the Code of Ethics
as approved by the Philippine Medical
Association.
Refusal of a physician to attend a patient
in danger of death is not a sufficient
ground for revocation or suspension of his
registration certificate if there is a risk to
the physician's life.
 PROCEDURE / RULES
FILING OF CHARGES W/IN 5 DAYS THE BOARD SHALL CONDUCT
UNDER OATH RESPONDENT MD WILL BE INVESTIGATION W/IN 5
FURNISHED W/ A COPY DAYS

CA / SC CERTIORARI

BEFORE AFTER
30 DAYS DECISION 30 DAYS
OFFICE OF COMMIS-
THE SIONER
PRESIDENT OF CIVIIL
SERVICE APPEAL FINAL

CA / SC APPEAL Notwithstanding an appeal or petition for review of the

decision of the OP, the same is executory and the records
will be remanded to the department where the case
originated, unless the CA or the SC issues an order staying
the execution of the decision.
 RIGHTS OF RESPONDENTS
1. The respondent physician shall be
entitled to be represented by counsel
or be heard by himself or herself;

2. to have a speedy and public hearing

3. to confront and to cross-examine

witnesses against him or her;

4. all other rights guaranteed by the

Constitution and provided for in the
Rules of Court.
Section 27. Reinstatement.

After two years, the Board may order

the reinstatement of any physicians
whose certificate of registration has
been revoked, if the respondent has
acted in an exemplary manner in the
community wherein he resides and has
not committed any illegal, immoral or
dishonorable act.
GOMEZ VS. VENTURA GR 32441 3/29/30
FACTS: Gomez has been charged guilty by the Board of
Examiners for violation of the Opium Law thus forever
revoking the plaintiff’s license to practice medicine and
surgery. Gomez filed for the issuance of the writ of
mandamus to annul the decision of the Board.
ISSUE: WON the decision of the Board should be annulled
and be set aside.
HELD: NO. It is a rule of general application that mandamus
will not lie to review or control the acts of executive officers
and boards of state in respect of matters as to which they
are vested with discretion, even though the exercise of this
discretion requires the interpretation of statutes. Where
public officials exercise their discretion, it is said that their
conclusions, although disputable, are impregnable to
mandamus. Here, the powers vested in the Board of
Medical Examiners to suspend or revoke a physician’s
certificate of registration partake of a quasi-judicial
character, which involves the use of discretion.
ILLEGAL PRACTICE OF MEDICINE
• Also called Unauthorized Practice
of Medicine

• Performance of acts considered as

constituting the practice of
medicine without falling in any of
those exempted by law without
proper license and certificate of
registration to practice medicine.

• Different from Medical Malpractice

or Medical Negligence
Section 28. Penalties.

Any person found guilty of "illegal

practice of medicine" shall be punished
by a fine of not less than one thousand
pesos nor more than ten thousand pesos
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, or by imprisonment of not
less than one year nor more than five
years, or by both such fine and
imprisonment, in the discretion of the
court.
Section 29. Injunctions. The Board of Medical
Examiners may file an action to enjoin any person
illegally practicing medicine from the performance
of any act constituting practice of medicine if the
case so warrants until the necessary certificate
therefore is secured. Any such person who, after
having been so enjoined, continues in the illegal
practice of medicine shall be punished for
contempt of court. The said injunction shall not
relieve the person practicing medicine without
certificate of registration from criminal
prosecution and punishment as provided in the
preceding section.
Thank You
for
Listening !!!