ASG Law

Tag: RA 1998

  • Corporate Practice of Optometry: Defining the Boundaries of Professional Regulation

    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

  • Can Corporations Hire Optometrists? Understanding Corporate Practice of Professions in the Philippines

    Corporations Can Employ Licensed Professionals: The Optometry Exception

    G.R. No. 117097, March 21, 1997

    Imagine walking into an optical shop, expecting a quick eye exam before purchasing new glasses. But is the corporation operating the shop illegally practicing optometry? This question delves into the heart of whether corporations can employ professionals without overstepping legal boundaries. The Supreme Court tackled this issue in a case involving an optical shop, clarifying the limits of corporate practice and professional regulations.

    Introduction

    This case, Samahan ng Optometrists sa Pilipinas vs. Acebedo International Corporation, revolves around the question of whether a corporation engaged in selling optical goods can employ optometrists without violating the law that reserves the practice of optometry to licensed individuals. The petitioners, an association of optometrists, argued that Acebedo International Corporation, by employing optometrists, was indirectly practicing optometry, which is prohibited. The Supreme Court, however, sided with the corporation, providing clarity on the scope of professional practice and corporate operations.

    Legal Context: Regulating Professions in the Philippines

    In the Philippines, certain professions are regulated to ensure competence and ethical conduct. Laws like Republic Act No. 1998 (the old Optometry Law) and Republic Act No. 8050 (the Revised Optometry Law) govern the practice of optometry. The core principle is that only qualified and licensed individuals can directly engage in these professions. The key question is whether employing a professional equates to the corporation itself practicing that profession.

    What is the Practice of Optometry? According to Sec. 4 of RA 8050, the practice of optometry includes:

    • Examining the human eye using various procedures and instruments.
    • Prescribing and dispensing ophthalmic lenses, contact lenses, and related accessories.
    • Conducting ocular exercises and vision training.
    • Counseling patients on vision and eye care.
    • Establishing optometric clinics.
    • Collecting professional fees for these services.

    Section 5 of RA 8050 prohibits unauthorized practice, stating, “No person shall practice optometry… without having been first admitted to the practice of this profession…”

    However, the law does not explicitly prohibit corporations from employing licensed optometrists.

    Example: A hospital employs doctors and nurses. The hospital isn’t practicing medicine; it’s providing a facility where licensed professionals can practice their profession.

    Case Breakdown: Samahan ng Optometrists vs. Acebedo

    Here’s a breakdown of the case:

    • The Dispute: Acebedo International Corporation applied for a permit to operate an optical shop in Candon, Ilocos Sur. The Samahan ng Optometrists sa Pilipinas (SOP) opposed, arguing that Acebedo, as a corporation, was not qualified to practice optometry.
    • The Local Committee: The Mayor of Candon created a committee that denied Acebedo’s application, ordering them to close.
    • The Trial Court: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) upheld the committee’s decision, stating that Acebedo’s operations involved the practice of optometry.
    • The Court of Appeals: Acebedo appealed, and the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC’s decision. The CA held that Acebedo was not practicing optometry but merely employing optometrists.
    • The Supreme Court: The SOP appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the CA’s decision.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that Acebedo’s business was selling optical lenses and eyeglasses, not practicing optometry. The employment of optometrists was incidental to this business. The Court quoted the Court of Appeals:

    “Clearly, the corporation is not an optical clinic. Nor is it — but rather the optometrists employed by it who are — engaged in the practice of optometry. Petitioner-appellant simply dispenses optical and ophthalmic instruments and supplies.”

    The Court further stated:

    “For petitioners’ argument to hold water, there need be clear showing that RA. No. 1998 prohibits a corporation from hiring optometrists, for only then would it be undeniably evident that the intention of the legislature is to preclude the formation of the so-called optometry corporations because such is tantamount to the practice of the profession of optometry which is legally exercisable only by natural persons and professional partnerships. We have carefully reviewed RA. No. 1998 however, and we find nothing therein that supports petitioner’s insistent claims.”

    Practical Implications: What This Means for Businesses

    This ruling confirms that corporations can employ licensed professionals to support their business operations, even if those operations are related to the professional’s field. The key is that the corporation itself is not directly engaging in the practice of the profession.

    Key Lessons:

    • No Direct Practice: Corporations cannot directly engage in activities that constitute the practice of a regulated profession without the appropriate license for the entity itself.
    • Employment is Permissible: Corporations can employ licensed professionals to further their business goals, provided that the corporation does not itself engage in the practice of the profession.
    • Focus on Primary Business: The corporation’s primary business should be clearly defined and distinct from the practice of the profession.

    Example: A software company can hire lawyers to handle legal matters. The company isn’t practicing law; it’s employing lawyers for its internal legal needs.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q: Can a corporation own a medical clinic and employ doctors?

    A: Yes, a corporation can own a medical clinic and employ doctors, provided the corporation is not itself practicing medicine. The doctors are practicing medicine within the clinic setting.

    Q: Does this ruling apply to other professions besides optometry?

    A: Yes, the principle applies to other regulated professions as well. Corporations can employ architects, engineers, lawyers, and other professionals as needed, so long as the corporation isn’t directly practicing the profession.

    Q: What if the corporation is primarily engaged in providing professional services?

    A: If the corporation’s primary purpose is to provide professional services, it may need to be structured as a professional partnership or association, depending on the specific regulations governing the profession.

    Q: What are the risks of a corporation being accused of illegally practicing a profession?

    A: The risks include legal penalties, closure of the business, and damage to the corporation’s reputation. It’s crucial to ensure compliance with professional regulations.

    Q: How can a corporation ensure it’s not illegally practicing a profession?

    A: Clearly define the corporation’s primary business, ensure that employed professionals are properly licensed, and avoid directly offering professional services under the corporation’s name.

    Q: What is the difference between a professional partnership and a corporation employing professionals?

    A: A professional partnership is formed by professionals to practice their profession jointly. A corporation employing professionals is a business entity that hires professionals to support its operations.

    ASG Law specializes in Corporate Law and Regulatory Compliance. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.