Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EDUCATION vs. HON.

DANIEL ALFONSO
FACTS:
-Petitioners BME, the government agency which supervises and regulates the
countrys medical colleges, Sec. Quisimbing, chairman of the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports prayed for a writ of certiorari to nullify the order of
herein Respondent Judge Alfonso in Civil case No. 1385 restraining the enforcement
of Pet. Order of closure of Philippine Muslim-Christian College of Medicine
Foundation Inc(the college).
-The college was founded on 1981 for the purpose of producing physicians who will
emancipate Muslim citizens from age-old attitudes of health.
-However, because of the unstable peace and order situation in Mindanao, the
college was established in Antipolo, Rizal, given a temporary permit to operate
instead of the originally proposed location in Zamboanga City. Antipolo was adopted
as its permanent site and the name was changed to Rizal College of Medicine.
-In 1985, DECS & BME authorized the Commission on Medical Education to conduct
a study of all Medical Schools in the Philippines.
-The report showed that the college fell very much short of the minimum standards
set for medical schools. Further, the team of inspectors cited the ff. Grounds among
others:
(a)the College was not fulfilling its purpose due inappropriate location
(b)lack of university affiliation for balance humanistic and scientific education
(c)absence of philosophy based hospitals for students training
(d)more than 60% of the college faculty did not teach full time
-The school disputed these findings as biased and discriminatory and requested BME
nd
to send another team of doctors for re-evaluation. 2 team confirmed the previous
findings and recommended the phase-out of the school.
-There were third and fourth evaluations but the college failed both and was rendered
inadequate in all aspects.
-The DECS recommended the college for closure but somehow the college
succeeded to have the Board form yet another team of inspectors but although the
findings show that there were major efforts to improve the college, it is still rendered
inadequate and recommended for closure w/ provisions to disperse its students to
other medical schools.
-Mr. Victor Sumulong(chairman of BOT), upon learning the same proposed a gradual
phase-out so as not to dislocate the students and minimized financial losses
ALLOWED to operate until May 1989.
-The college appealed the decision to the OP, but the Executive Secretary found no
reason to disturb the contested decision AFFIRMED!
-The college filed civil case No. 1385 applying for a writ of preliminary injunction to
restrain its implementation APPROVED! (by Judge Alfonso holding that there were
no evidence supporting the findings in the June 18, 1988 report, and that contrary to
the findings, the laboratory and library areas were big enough and operations in the
base hospital was going smoothly.)
-Thus, the present petition.
ISSUE/HELD:
(1) WON Judge Alfonso acted with grave abuse of discretion in substituting his
judgment to for the members/evaluators.
YES! It is well-settled doctrine that courts of justice should not generally
interfere with purely administrative and discretionary functions; that courts have no

supervisory power over the proceedings and actions of the administrative


departments of the government; involving the exercise of judgment and findings of
facts, because by reason of their special knowledge and expertise over matters falling
under their jurisdiction, the latter are in a better position to pass judgment on such
matters andn their findings of facts in that regard are generally accorded respect, if
15
not finality, by the courts. There are, to be sure, exceptions to this general rule but
none of them obtains in this case.
(2) WON NMCS ORDER No. 5 has been violated?
NO! It was sought to be effected before the lapse of the three-year period
therein snowed, which in this case is sought to be counted from June 18, 1988, or the
date of the last evaluation. The subsequent evaluations are merely to confirm the
st
facts of the 1 evaluation in 1985. Notwithstanding the absence of an explicit grant of
opportunity for the college to comply with certain requirements, the lapse of over
three years must be deemed as substantial compliance with the relied provision.
(3) WON the college was denied due process of law?
NO! It holds no water, as the record clearly shows that the College was
given every opportunity to so improve itself as to come up to requirements, but
remained sadly sub-standard after the inspections conducted by the evaluating
teams. It had, in fact, admitted its failure to have up to the desired standards when it
proposed its gradual phase-out in its letter dated June 27, 1988 to Secretary
Quisumbing. It was also precisely because of its complaints of bias and prejudice that
the Board of Medical Education dispatched new teams to survey and re-evaluate its
performance. It had even gone all the way up to the Office of the President to seek a
reversal of the order of closure. There is thus no reason for it to complain of a lack of
opportunity to be heard and to explain its side as well as to seek reconsideration of
the ruling complained of.
Having thus disposed of the issues raised by the facts of the case, the Court
sees no useful purpose to be served by remanding the case to the Trial Court
for further proceedings. The, only acceptable reason for such a remand would
be so that the Trial Court may determine whether or not the petitioners' first
have acted within the scope of their powers or grossly abused them, a matter
that this Court has already passed upon here. Such a remand cannot be
justified on the theory that the Trial Court will make its philosophy independent
determination of whether or not respondent medical institution has complied
with the minimum standards laid down for its continued operation, since, as
here ruled, it has not that power.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby granted and the
temporary restraining order issued by the Court is made, permanent. The,
questioned writ of preliminary injunction dated May 10, 1989 is set aside and
respondent Judge is ordered to dismiss Civil Case No. 1385.