G.R. No. L-18913. April 15, 1922.
RAFAEL A. DIMAYUGA and TEOFILO FAJARDO, plaintiffs, vs. RAMON FERNANDEZ, Mayor of the city of Manila, LUIS P. TORRES, city fiscal JOHN W. GREEN, chief of police, defendants.

FACTS

Plaintiffs Rafael A. Dimayuga and Teofilo Fajardo are chiropractic doctors practicing in Manila. They claim to be graduates of reputable American universities, have paid the required license fee, and assert that chiropractic treatment involves no drugs or medicines. They allege that there is no law prohibiting or regulating the practice of chiropractic in the Philippines, and that they sought but were denied an examination by the Board of Medical Examiners because no member was knowledgeable in chiropractic. The Director of Health initially raised no objection to their practice absent complaints. Defendants, the Mayor, City Fiscal, and Chief of Police of Manila, acting on the City Fiscal’s legal opinion, are threatening to arrest and prosecute plaintiffs for illegally practicing medicine. A criminal case for illegal practice of medicine is already pending against Dimayuga in the Court of First Instance of Manila since September 1921. Plaintiffs filed this petition for a writ of prohibition to restrain the defendants from arresting them, claiming constitutional rights violations and lack of an adequate legal remedy.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of prohibition should be issued to restrain the city authorities from arresting and prosecuting the plaintiffs for the alleged illegal practice of medicine.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court sustained the defendants’ demurrer and dissolved the temporary restraining order. The Court held that, as a general rule, equity will not enjoin the enforcement of a criminal law. Exceptions exist to prevent oppressive or vindictive use of legal authority or a multiplicity of actions, but such circumstances were not present here. The criminal case pending in the Court of First Instance already provides an adequate remedy at law where the plaintiffs can raise and have adjudicated the same legal and constitutional questions they present in this prohibition proceeding. The defendants were acting in good faith based on the City Fiscal’s legal opinion. The fact that only one criminal complaint had been filed months prior indicated no oppressive intent to involve plaintiffs in numerous prosecutions. The Court declined to rule on the constitutional questions, as they could be properly raised in the pending criminal case. Plaintiffs were given leave to amend their complaint.