G.R. No. 131759 March 23, 2004
Ma. Teresita C. Caballes and Vladimir Ruidera, petitioners, vs. Drs. Primitiva Perez-Sison, Ligaya D. Perez, Antonio F. Joson, Jr., Board of Optometry of the Professional Regulation Commission, Samahan ng mga Optometrist sa Pilipinas (SOP), and Charlie Ho, respondents.

FACTS

The Samahan ng mga Optometrist sa Pilipinas (SOP) filed an administrative complaint before the Board of Optometry against several optometrists, including petitioners Ma. Teresita Caballes and Vladimir Ruidera, who were employed by Vision Express Philippines, Inc. (VEPI). The complaint alleged unethical and unprofessional conduct for violating the Optometry Code of Ethics, specifically for holding themselves out to the public as optometrists under a corporate name rather than their own, and for allegedly allowing themselves to be instruments for VEPI’s illegal practice of optometry. The petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, arguing that the complainant admitted he did not personally witness them rendering optometric services and that the supporting affidavits did not identify their participation.
The Board of Optometry denied the Motion to Dismiss, ruling that the complaint sufficiently identified the petitioners as employees of VEPI and that the central issue—whether such employment constituted unethical conduct—required a full hearing on the merits. The petitioners elevated the matter directly to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, which was dismissed. Their motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the petition for certiorari, thereby upholding the Board of Optometry’s denial of the Motion to Dismiss.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The core legal principle is that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is generally not the proper remedy to assail an interlocutory order, such as an order denying a motion to dismiss. The Court emphasized that certiorari is only available when the tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and when no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists.
The petitioners failed to demonstrate that the Board of Optometry committed grave abuse of discretion. The Board correctly determined that the complaint stated a cause of action by alleging facts which, if proven true, could constitute a violation of the ethical rules governing the profession. The propriety of their employment with VEPI and the nature of their services are evidentiary matters requiring a full trial. The orderly procedure dictates that the petitioners should have proceeded to trial, raised their defenses, and awaited a final judgment before seeking appellate review. By prematurely resorting to certiorari, they breached this orderly process. The Court found no exceptional circumstance justifying a departure from this rule.