GR 48648; (November, 1942) (Digest)
G.R. No. 48648 ; November 28, 1942
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEON VILLANUEVA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The defendant-appellant, Leon Villanueva, placed gold crowns on the teeth of Fausta Arroyo, Teodora Arroyo, and Lucrecia Arroyo after trimming the teeth of the first two. It is undisputed that the teeth upon which he placed the crowns were “healthy and not otherwise defective.” He collected fees for these acts and had no license to practice dentistry. He also had a previous conviction for the illegal practice of dentistry.
ISSUE
Whether or not the appellant, by placing gold crowns on healthy teeth after trimming them for a fee, practiced dentistry within the meaning of Section 794 of the Revised Administrative Code.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Laguna finding the appellant guilty of illegal practice of dentistry with the aggravating circumstance of recidivism.
The Court held that Section 794 of the Revised Administrative Code defines practicing dentistry as performing, for a fee or reward, “any operation or part of an operation upon the human teeth or jaws, or who shall treat diseases or lesions, or correct malpositions of the teeth.” The term “operation” is to be given its ordinary meaning, covering any “action,” “specific act or activity,” or “course of action by which some result is accomplished.” The appellant’s act of trimming teeth and placing gold crowns constitutes such an operation. It is not necessary for the act to be for curative purposes; curative work falls under the separate clause concerning treating diseases or correcting malpositions. The fact that the law specifically excludes “artisans engaged in the mechanical construction of artificial dentures or other oral devices” supports this interpretation. While the mechanical construction of the crowns might be exempt, the act of placing them on the patient’s teeth is not.
Therefore, the appellant’s actions constituted illegal practice of dentistry. Considering his lack of a license, collection of fees, and previous conviction, the penalty imposed by the lower court was affirmed.