G.R. No. 251816 , November 23, 2021
FLORENTINA CAOYONG SOBREJUANITE-FLORES, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONERS TEOFILO S. PILANDO, JR., YOLANDA D. REYES, MIRIAM P. CUE, ALEXA P. ABRENICA, AND IMELDA G. VILLAR, ALL OF THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Florentina Caoyong Sobrejuanite-Flores applied for registration as a psychologist without examination under the “grandfather clause” of Republic Act No. 10029 (Philippine Psychology Act of 2009) on May 7, 2015. Section 16 of RA 10029 allows registration without examination for a limited period for applicants who, prior to the law’s effectivity, possessed specific educational attainments and work experience. For those with a bachelor’s degree, Section 16(c) requires: a minimum of ten (10) years of work experience in the practice of psychology as a psychologist, and updated professional education in various psychology-related functions.
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 10029, approved by the Professional Regulatory Board of Psychology, defined “professional education in various psychology-related functions” as the completion of at least 100 hours of updating workshops and training programs across various areas and specialties in psychology, conducted by duly established organizations, in the last five (5) years immediately preceding the effectivity of RA 10029 (i.e., from 2005 to June 2, 2010).
The Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) denied Florentina’s application. The PRC found she had insufficient work experience, as the documents showed she only started working with the title “Psychologist” in March 2004, accumulating only about six years of experience by the law’s effectivity, not the required ten years. The PRC also found she failed to submit proof of completing the required 100 hours of updating workshops and training programs within the specified five-year period. Florentina appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing she had been employed as a psychologist since 1980 and assailing the constitutionality of the IRR’s 100-hour requirement as an onerous and discriminatory addition not found in the law itself. The CA upheld the validity of the administrative regulation and affirmed the PRC’s factual findings.

ISSUE

The core issue is the validity of the administrative regulation (the IRR) which added the specific requirement of completing “at least 100 hours of updating workshops and training programs” for registration without examination under Section 16(c) of RA 10029.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the challenged provision in the IRR. The Court ruled that the requirement of “at least 100 hours of updating workshops and training programs” is a valid implementation of the law’s mandate for “updated professional education.” The law granted the Professional Regulatory Board the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out its provisions. The IRR’s specification is a reasonable and necessary elaboration to give effect to the legislative intent of ensuring that psychologists registered under the grandfather clause possess current and relevant knowledge. It is not an unconstitutional addition but a legitimate exercise of delegated legislative power. The Court also affirmed the factual findings of the PRC and the CA that the petitioner failed to meet the work experience and updating requirements stipulated under the law and its IRR.