G.R. No. L-7262, October 21, 1911
FRANCISCO GONZALES Y SALAZAR, plaintiff, vs. THE BOARD OF PHARMACY, created by Act No. 597, and the SECRETARY TREASURER of said Board, defendants.

FACTS

Plaintiff Francisco Gonzales y Salazar, an alumnus of the College of Pharmacy of Spain, was licensed and practiced pharmacy in Antique from 1887 to 1895. He sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Board of Pharmacy to issue him a certificate to practice pharmacy in the Philippines without examination. He argued that under Spanish rule, his Spanish pharmacy degree had the same standing as a degree from the University of Santo Tomas. He failed to register within the 120-day period required by Section 11 of Act No. 597 (the Pharmacy Act), claiming he was unaware of the law as he was in Negros during that period. The Board refused his application because he did not meet any of the conditions for automatic registration under the Act.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling the Board of Pharmacy to issue him a pharmacist’s certificate without examination.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint. For mandamus to issue, the plaintiff must show a clear legal right to the act demanded and a corresponding imperative duty of the defendant to perform it. Act No. 597 established specific conditions for the practice of pharmacy. The plaintiff did not allege that he: (1) passed the required board examination; (2) was a graduate of the University of Santo Tomas College of Pharmacy (which would qualify him under Sections 9 or 10); or (3) was engaged in pharmacy practice at the time of the Act’s passage and registered within the 120-day grace period under Section 11. His Spanish degree and prior practice did not automatically confer a right under the new law. The Board had no legal duty to issue him a certificate without examination, and mandamus cannot compel an act not required by law.