GR 166097; (July, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166097 ; July 14, 2008
Board of Medicine, et al., Petitioners, vs. Yasuyuki Ota, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Yasuyuki Ota, a Japanese national married to a Filipina and a long-time resident, graduated from a Philippine medical school and completed the required internship. He applied to take the medical board examinations. The Professional Regulation Commission required him to submit an affidavit of undertaking, promising that upon passing, he would not practice until proving the existence of reciprocity between Japan and the Philippines regarding the admission of foreigners to the medical profession. Respondent complied, submitting an authenticated English translation of Japan’s Medical Practitioners Law, and was allowed to take and subsequently pass the August 1992 board exams. Nevertheless, the Board of Medicine denied his application for a license in March 1993, asserting that no genuine reciprocity existed, as it believed no foreigner could possibly practice medicine in Japan.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that respondent had established the existence of reciprocity in the practice of medicine between the Philippines and Japan, thereby compelling the Board to issue his license.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. The legal logic centers on the proper interpretation of “reciprocity” under Section 9 of the Medical Act of 1959 and the nature of the Board’s duty upon compliance. Reciprocity does not require proof that a Filipino has actually practiced medicine in the foreign country or that the conditions are identically attainable. It is established by showing that the foreign country’s laws do not prohibit Filipinos from practicing medicine there, provided they meet its requirements. Respondent presented the official Medical Practitioners Law of Japan, which expressly allows foreigners who meet educational standards and pass the national examination to be licensed. This was competent and conclusive evidence. The Board’s denial, based on its subjective belief about practical impossibilities and the absence of an actual Filipino practitioner, imposed an extra-legal condition not found in the statute.
Furthermore, while the PRC and Board possess discretionary powers to regulate the profession, their duty to issue a certificate of registration becomes ministerial once an applicant fulfills all statutory requirements, including proving reciprocity. Respondent satisfied all conditions: he graduated, trained, passed the exams, and proved Japan’s law allows Filipino licensure. Therefore, mandamus lies to compel the performance of this ministerial duty. The Board’s refusal was a grave abuse of discretion.