THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EDUCATION vs. HON. DANIEL ALFONSO FACTS: -Petitioners BME, the government agency which supervises and regulates the country’s 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. 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 pur pose due inappropriate location (b)lack of university affiliation for balance humanistic and scientific education (c)absence (c)absence of philosophy based hospitals for student’s 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 operate until May 1989. 1989. -The college appealed the decision to the OP, but the Executive Secretary found no reason to disturb the contested decision – decision – AFFIRMED! AFFIRMED! -The college filed civil case No. 1385 applying for a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain its implementation – implementation – APPROVED! 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: ISSUE/HELD : (1) (1) WON Judge Alfonso acted with grave abuse of discretion in substituting his judgment to for the members/evaluators. members/evaluators. YES! It is well-settled doctrine that courts of justice 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 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.
