The Supreme Court held that a corporation employing licensed optometrists for its optical business is not considered to be engaged in the practice of optometry itself. This ruling clarifies that while only licensed individuals can practice optometry, corporations can employ these professionals without it being construed as the corporation practicing the profession. This distinction is crucial for understanding the scope of professional regulation and the permissible business activities of corporations in related fields.

Can Corporations Offer Eye Exams? Demarcating Business from Professional Practice

The case of Doctors Rosa P. Alfafara, et al. v. Acebedo Optical Co., Inc. centers on whether Acebedo Optical Co., Inc.’s hiring of licensed optometrists to conduct eye examinations and prescribe lenses constitutes the illegal corporate practice of optometry. Petitioners, a group of optometrists, sought to enjoin Acebedo from practicing optometry, arguing that the corporation’s actions violated the Optometry Law (R.A. No. 1998) and the Code of Ethics for Optometrists. The central question revolves around whether employing licensed professionals equates to a corporation engaging in the professional practice itself.

The Regional Trial Court initially ruled in favor of the optometrists, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, citing a previous case, Samahan ng Optometrists sa Pilipinas, Ilocos Sur-Abra Chapter v. Acebedo International Corporation. This earlier case established that hiring licensed optometrists does not, in itself, constitute the practice of optometry by the corporation. The Court of Appeals found that Acebedo was primarily engaged in selling optical products, not providing optometry services as a professional practice. This position was based on the understanding that R.A. No. 1998 regulates the practice of optometry by individuals, not the employment of optometrists by corporations.

Petitioners argued that the later case of Apacionado v. Professional Regulation Commission should override the previous ruling. In Apacionado, optometrists employed by Acebedo were suspended for unprofessional conduct for participating in promotional advertisements offering free eye consultations. The Supreme Court affirmed the suspension, finding that the optometrists had violated the rules and regulations of the Board of Examiners for Optometry by making optometric examinations outside of their regular clinics and advertising free examinations. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that Apacionado did not find Acebedo itself to be engaged in the practice of optometry. The optometrists were penalized for their actions as individual professionals, not for the corporation’s business activities.

The Supreme Court rejected the petitioners’ argument, clarifying that only natural persons can be registered as optometrists and engage in the practice of optometry. Corporations, being juridical persons, cannot take the licensure examinations required to practice optometry under R.A. No. 1998. The Court underscored that Acebedo’s business was the sale of optical products, and the employment of optometrists was incidental to this business, not the practice of optometry itself. This distinction is critical in understanding how professional regulations apply to corporations employing licensed professionals.

Petitioners further contended that an optometrist employed by a corporation acts as an agent of the corporation and should not be held personally liable for their actions. They cited Articles 1897 and 1910 of the Civil Code, which pertain to the liability of agents and the obligations of principals. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, stating that while optometrists are employees of Acebedo, their practice of optometry is separate and distinct from the corporation’s business. Optometrists are personally liable for their professional acts, just as the corporation is liable for its business operations. The Board of Optometry and the Professional Regulation Commission regulate the optometrists’ practice, maintaining exclusive original jurisdiction over them.

Furthermore, the Court referred to Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, where the City Mayor of Iligan granted Acebedo a business permit with specific conditions, including that Acebedo could not operate an optical clinic or examine patients without a prescription from an independent optometrist. The Supreme Court held that the City Mayor could not regulate the practice of optometry through a business permit. Acebedo was entitled to a business permit as an optical shop, and the fact that it employed licensed optometrists did not mean it was engaging in the practice of optometry as a corporate body. This ruling reaffirms the principle that corporations can employ professionals without being deemed to be practicing the profession themselves, provided they do not seek a license to engage in the professional practice directly.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision hinges on the distinction between the corporate business of selling optical products and the individual practice of optometry. Acebedo’s employment of licensed optometrists does not equate to the corporation illegally practicing optometry. The regulation of professional practice remains with the individual optometrists, who are personally liable for their professional actions. This framework allows corporations to operate related businesses while ensuring that professional standards and regulations are upheld by licensed individuals.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Acebedo Optical Co., Inc., by employing licensed optometrists, was illegally engaging in the practice of optometry as a corporation, in violation of R.A. No. 1998.
Can a corporation be licensed to practice optometry in the Philippines?	No, only natural persons who have passed the licensure examination and are registered with the Professional Regulation Commission can practice optometry. Corporations cannot be licensed as optometrists.
Did the Supreme Court find Acebedo Optical guilty of illegally practicing optometry?	No, the Supreme Court ruled that Acebedo Optical, by employing licensed optometrists, was not engaging in the illegal practice of optometry. Its primary business was the sale of optical products, and the optometrists’ services were incidental to this business.
Are optometrists employed by corporations personally liable for their professional actions?	Yes, optometrists employed by corporations are personally liable for their actions in the course of their practice. The Board of Optometry and the Professional Regulation Commission regulate their practice.
What was the significance of the Apacionado v. Professional Regulation Commission case?	In Apacionado, optometrists employed by Acebedo were suspended for unprofessional conduct, but the case did not find Acebedo itself to be engaged in the practice of optometry. It underscored that individual optometrists are responsible for adhering to professional standards.
Can a city mayor regulate the practice of optometry through business permits?	No, the Supreme Court held that a city mayor cannot regulate the practice of a profession, such as optometry, through the issuance of a business permit. Business permits primarily regulate the conduct of a business.
What is the main difference between selling optical products and practicing optometry?	Selling optical products is a commercial activity, while practicing optometry involves examining eyes, prescribing lenses, and providing corrective measures. The former can be done by a corporation, while the latter requires individual licensure.
What is the role of the Board of Optometry and the Professional Regulation Commission in this context?	The Board of Optometry and the Professional Regulation Commission regulate the practice of optometry and have exclusive original jurisdiction over licensed optometrists. They ensure that optometrists adhere to professional standards and ethical conduct.

The Alfafara v. Acebedo case remains a key precedent in defining the boundaries between corporate business activities and the practice of regulated professions. It clarifies that corporations can employ licensed professionals without being deemed to be engaging in the professional practice themselves, provided they do not seek to directly provide professional services under a corporate license. This distinction is crucial for balancing business interests with the need to protect professional standards and the public.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Doctors Rosa P. Alfafara, et al. v. Acebedo Optical, Co., Inc., G.R. No. 148384, April 17, 2002