A REPORT IN LEGAL MEDICINE

Assigned Topics:
Criteria for taking the Board
Exam in medicine
Illegal Practice of Medicine

SUBMITTED BY:
ANTIQUE, MARY GRACE
RIVERA, VINA ROCHELLE

CRITERIA FOR TAKING THE BOARD EXAMINATION IN MEDICINE

A. General Practice of Medicine (Professional Regulation Commission)
No person shall engage in the practice of medicine in the Philippines unless he is:
at least twenty-one years of age,
has satisfactorily passed the corresponding Board of Examination
And is a holder of a valid Certificate of Registration duly issued to him by
the Board of Medical Examiners.
B.PHYSICIANS ACT OF 2010

An act regulating the education and license of physicians and the practice of
medicine in
the Philippines repealing Republic Act No. 2382

DECLARATION OF POLICY:
The state recognizes the vital role of physicians in the preservation, maintenance,
safeguard, cure and enhancement of life, health and general welfare of the citizenry.
Physicians professional services shall, therefore, be promoted as a regular component
of the total healthcare system

Article IV:PHYSICIAN LICENSURE EXAMINATION

Section 20:
QUALIFICATIONS
LICENSURE EXAMINATION

OF

APPLICANTS

FOR

THE

PHYSICIAN

All applicants for the physician licensure examination must possess all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications:
QUALIFICATIONS

DISQUALIFICATIONS

1.He/she is a citizen and resident of the

Philippines or a citizen of a foreign
country which observes reciprocity in
the practice of medicine with the
Philippines or has been a permanent
resident of the Philippines for at least
one year prior to the examination;
2. He /she is mentally, emotionally and
physically sound.

1.He/she has not been convicted in a

final judgment by a court of any
criminal
offense
involving
moral
turpitude;

3. He/she is a holder of the degree of

Doctor of Medicine conferred by a
College of Medicine established in the
Philippines and duly recognized by the
CHED or a degree conferred by a
college of medicine abroad and
accredited
by
the
CHED
as
substantially equivalent to the degree
of Doctor of medicine offered by a
Philippine College of Medicine
4. He must have completed a calendar
year of technical training known as
internship the nature of which shall be
prescribed by the Board of Medical
Education undertaken in hospitals and
health centers approved by the Board.

Note:
A successful examinee who has been finally convicted by a competent court of a
criminal offense involving moral turpitude, or found guilty by the Board of dishonorable
or immoral conduct, or declared by the court to be of unsound mind shall not be
registered.

RELATED CASE:
BOARD OF MEDICINE, DR. RAUL FLORES (now DR. JOSE S. RAMIREZ), Present: In his
capacity as Chairman of the Board, PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION,-versusYASUYUKI OTA
FACTS
o Yasuyuki Ota (respondent) is a Japanese national, married to a Filipina, who has
continuously resided in the Philippines for more than 10 years.
o He graduated from Bicol Christian College of Medicine with a degree of Doctor of
Medicine. After successfully completing a one-year post graduate internship
training at the Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center, he filed an application to
take the medical board examinations in order to obtain a medical license. He was
required by the(PRC) to submit an affidavit of undertaking, stating among others
that should he successfully pass the same, he would not practice medicine until
he submits proof that reciprocity exists between Japan and the Philippines in
admitting foreigners into the practice of medicine.
o Respondent submitted a duly notarized English translation of the Medical
Practitioners Law of Japan duly authenticated by the Consul General of
the Philippine Embassy to Japan, Jesus I. Yabes; thus, he was allowed to take
the Medical Board Examinations which he subsequently passed.
o In spite of all these, the Board of Medicine (Board) of the PRC, in a letter dated
March 8, 1993, denied respondent's request for a license to practice medicine in
the Philippines on the ground that the Board believes that no genuine reciprocity
can be found in the law of Japan as there is no Filipino or foreigner who can
possibly practice there.
o Respondent then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus against the Board
before the RTC of Manila. RTC ruled for the Yasuki.
o The Board and the PRC (petitioners) appealed the case to the CA, stating that
while respondent submitted documents showing that foreigners are allowed to
practice medicine in Japan, it was not shown that the conditions for the practice
of medicine there are practical and attainable by a foreign applicant, hence,
reciprocity was not established; also, the power of the PRC and the Board to
regulate and control the practice of medicine is discretionary and not ministerial,
hence, not compellable by a writ of mandamus.
o The CA denied the appeal and affirmed the ruling of the RTC.
o
ISSUES:

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR

IN FINDING THAT RESPONDENTHAD ESTABLISHED THE EXISTENCE OF
RECIPROCITY IN THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE BETWEEN THEPHILIPPINES AND
JAPAN.
RULING:
The Court denies the petition for lack of merit. There is no question that a
license to practice medicine is a privilege or franchise granted by the government. It is a
right that is earned through years of education and training, and which requires that one
must first secure a license from the state through professional board examinations.
The regulation of the practice of medicine in all its branches has long been
recognized as a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public.
That the power to regulate and control the practice of medicine includes the power to
regulate admission to the ranks of those authorized to practice medicine, is also well
recognized. Thus, legislation and administrative regulations requiring those who wish to
practice medicine first to take and pass medical board examinations have long ago
been recognized as valid exercises of governmental power.
As required by the said laws, respondent submitted a copy of the Medical
Practitioners Law of Japan, duly authenticated by the Consul General of the Embassy of
the Philippines in Japan, which provides in Articles 2 and 11, thus: Article 2. Anyone who
wants to be medical practitioner must pass the national examination for medical
practitioner and get license from the Minister of Health and Welfare. Article 11. No one
can take the National Medical Examination except persons who conform to one of the
following items:
1. Persons who finished regular medical courses at a university based on the
School Education Laws and graduated from said university;
2. Persons whopassed the preparatory testforthe National Medical Examination an
d practiced clinics and public sanitation more than one year after passing the
said test;
3. Persons who
graduated from
a foreign
medical
school or
acquired medical practitioner license in a foreign country, and also are
recognized to have the same or more academic ability and techniques as
persons stated in item 1 and item 2 of this article. R.A. No. 2382, which provides
who may be candidates for the medical board examinations, merely requires a
foreign citizen to submit competent and conclusive documentary evidence,
confirmed by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), showing that his countrys
existing laws permit citizens of the Philippines to practice medicine under the
same rules and regulations governing citizens thereof.PRC is authorized to
prescribe additional requirements or grant certain privileges to foreigners seeking
registration in the Philippines if the same privileges are granted to or some

additional requirements are required of citizens of the Philippines in acquiring the

same certificates in his country.
Nowhere in said statutes is it stated that the foreign applicant must show that the conditions for the
practice of medicine in said country are practical and attainable by Filipinos. Neither is it
stated that it must first be proven that a Filipino has been granted license and allowed
to practice his profession in said country before a foreign applicant may be given license
to practice in the Philippines.
It is enough that the laws in the foreign country permit a Filipino to get license and
practice therein. Requiring respondent to prove first that a Filipino has already been
granted license and is actually practicing therein unduly expands the requirements
provided for under R.A. No. 2382 and P.D. No. 223
Indeed, to be granted the privilege to practice medicine, the applicant must show
that he possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications. It must also
appear that he has fully complied with all the conditions and requirements imposed by
the law and the licensing authority.
In this case, there is no doubt as to the competence and qualifications of
respondent. He finished his medical degree from Bicol Christian College of
Medicine. He completed one-year postgraduate internship training at the Jose Reyes
Memorial Medical Center, a government hospital. Then he passed the Medical Board
Examinations which was given on August 8, 1992 with a general average of 81.83, with
scores higher than 80 in 9 of the 12 subjects. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for
lack of merit.

Board of Medicine
Code of Ethics
Article II
DUTIES OF PHYSICIANS TO THEIR PATIENTS
Section 1. A physician should attend to his patients faithfully and conscientiously. He
should secure for them all possible benefits that may depend upon his professional skill
and care. As the sole tribunal to adjudge the physicians failure to fulfill his obligation to
his patients is, in most cases, his own conscience, and violation of this rule on his part is
discreditable and inexcusable.
Section 2. A physician is free to choose whom he will serve. He may refuse calls, or
other medical services for reasons satisfactory to his professional conscience. He
should, however, always respond to any request for his assistance in an emergency.
Once he undertakes a case, he should not abandon nor neglect it. If for any reason he
wants to be released from it, he should announce his desire previously, giving sufficient
time or opportunity to the patient or his family to secure another medical attendant.

ILLEGAL PRACTICE OF MEDICINE

Practice of medicine by any person not qualified and not duly-admitted to perform
medical acts in compliance with law.
Penalties
Pursuant to Sec.28, Art. IV, Medical Act of 1959 as amended Any person found guilty
of illegal practice shall be punished by a fine of not less than one thousand pesos or
more than ten thousand pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency or by
imprisonment of not less than one year no more than five years, or by both such fine
and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

Qualified to practice medicine in the Philippines

1. Those who have complied with the prerequisites to the practice of medicine in
accordance with Sec. 8, Art. III, Medical Act of 1959 as amended;
Section 8. Prerequisite to the practice of medicine. No person shall engage in the
practice of medicine in the Philippines unless he is at least twenty-one years of age, has
satisfactorily passed the corresponding Board Examination, and is a holder of a valid
Certificate of Registration duly issued to him by the Board of Medical Examiners.
2. Those who can have limited practice without any certificate of registration in
accordance with Sec.12, Art. III, Medical Act of 1959 as amended:
-Exclusive consultation in specific and definite cases;
Attached to international bodies to perform certain definite work in the Phils;
-Commissioned medical officers stationed in the Phils in their own territorial jurisdiction;
-Exchange professors in special branches of medicine;
-Medical students who have completed the first four years of medical course, graduates
of medicine and registered nurses who may be given limited and special authorization
by the DOH;
3. Balikbayan Physicians pursuant to PD 541, Allowing Former Filipino Professionals
to Practice Their Respective Professions in the Philippines
Proviso:
-Of good standing prior to their departure and in their adopted country;
-Have registered with PRC and paid their professional fee;
-Pay the corresponding income tax;
4. Foreign physicians qualified to practice by Reciprocity Rule or by endorsement;
5. Medical Students pursuant to Sec.11(a) Any medical student duly enrolled in an
approved medical college or school under training, serving without any professional fee
in any government or private hospital, provided that he renders such service under the
direct supervision and control of a registered physician and Sec.12(d) Medical students
who have completed the first four years of medical course, graduates of medicine and
registered nurses who may be given limited and special authorization by the Secretary
of Health to render medical services during epidemics or national emergencies
whenever the services of duly registered physicians are not available. Such
authorization shall automatically cease when the epidemic or national emergency is

declared terminated by the Secretary of Health., Art.III, Medical Act of 1959 as

amended;
6. Limited practitioners of medicine
-Those that are governed by specific licensure law
CASE OF ILLEGAL PRACTICE MEDICINE

Alexander Baez is a former Mr. Mexico and a runner-up Mr. Universe. Being a
bodybuilder, he is, unsurprisingly, concerned with his physique, and in 1999 he decided
he wanted to get pec implants. When he awoke from his surgery, he discovered that
while he had been given implants, he was actually given breast implants (C-cups), and
not pec implants. Police in Florida began a search for Reinaldo Silvestre, a man who
had posed as a doctor and had no legitimate medical credentials.
Medical malpractice suits fall into the genre of claims based on tort, called quasidelicts. In general, negligence suits require proof that a party failed to observe, for the
protection of the interest of another person, that degree of care, precaution, and
vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers
injury. It is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the
doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
Sample Case
You bring your son to the doctor to perform a routine check-up and to take a look
at a substantially deep laceration he just sustained from playing outside with his friends.
The doctor, who was in a rush because he was seeing many patients that day, calls
your son into an examination room. After performing a routine checkup, the doctor then

addresses the laceration on your sons leg, which was no more than half an hour old,
using tools from the top of the table. The doctor was not fazed by the deep wound and
said it would just take a few stitches to fix. The doctor proceeds to take more tools from
the top of a tablewhich, unknown to him, had just been used to treat a child who had
an infection. One of the doctors policies is to only use tools from drawers in the table,
because this ensures they were sterilized. A few days after seeing the doctor, your son
begins to suffer pain and discoloration around the cut, and becomes increasingly sick.
You bring your son back to the doctor, who denies any responsibility for the infection,
which required hospitalization and extensive treatment.
DUTIES and OBLIGATIONS Imposed on the Patient in the Course of the
Physician-Patient Relationship
1.He must give an honest medical history;
2.He must inform the physician of what occurred in the course of the treatment;
3.He must cooperate and follow the instructions, orders and suggestions of the
physician
4.He must state whether he understands the contemplated course of action;
He must exercise the prudence to be expected of an ordinary patient under the same
circumstances.
There are four elements to negligence. They include: duty, breach, injury, and damages.
A doctor-patient relationship existed. Once a doctor/patient relationship has been
established, the doctor now owes the patient a certain duty of care. This duty is to act
as other doctors in a similar position would act, and to follow medical care guidelines
accepted in the medical community. In this instance, your son and his doctor
established a doctor/relationship patient when you submitted personal information to the
office, and an examination was performed. The doctor now had a duty to act as other
doctors would under similar conditions and with the procedures and care accepted by
the medical community.
The doctor was negligent. After this doctor-patient relationship has been established,
the doctor is required to exercise reasonable care and treat the patient as would other
doctors in his field, following procedures and actions accepted by his peers. The doctor
must have been negligent in connection with your diagnosis or treatment to constitute
malpractice. You must be able to show that the doctor caused you harm in a way that a
competent doctor, under the same circumstances, would not have. The doctor's care is
not required to be the best possible, but simply "reasonably skillful and careful.

In the above stated case, negligence occurred when the doctor violated office protocol
and used tools from the top of the desk, instead of sanitized ones from a drawer in the
table. The use of un-sanitized tools placed your son at a risk of harm.
The doctor's negligence caused the injury. Because many malpractice cases involve
patients that were already sick or injured, there is often a question of whether what the
doctor did, negligent or not, actually caused the harm. For example, if a patient dies
after treatment for lung cancer, and the doctor did do something negligent, it could be
hard to prove that the doctor's negligence caused the death rather than the cancer. The
patient must show that it is "more likely than not" that the doctor's incompetence directly
caused the injury. Usually, the patient must have a medical expert testify that the
doctor's negligence caused the injury. Here, your son contracted an infection from the
un-sterilized tools the doctor used to treat the wound. To prevail in a negligence suit
against the doctor, your attorney must prove that the un-sterilized tools were the direct
result of your sons injury.
Res Ipsa Loquitor Doctrine
The thing speaks for itself; nature of the wrongful act or injury is suggestive of
negligence.
General rule: expert testimony is necessary to prove that a physician has done a
negligent act or that has deviated from the standard of medical practice.
Requisites of:
1.The accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of
someones negligence;
2. It must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the
defendant;
3. It must not have been due to any voluntary action or or contribution on the part of the
plaintiff
Cases where Res Ipsa Loquitor Doctrine appIies:
1. Objects left in the patients body at the time of caesarian section;
2. Injury to a healthy part of the body;
3. Removal of a wrong part of the body when another part wad intended;
4. Infection resulting from unsterilized instruments;
5. Failure to take radiographs to diagnose a possible fracture;

The injury led to specific damages. Even if it is clear that the doctor performed below
the expected standards in his or her field, the patient can't sue for malpractice if the
patient didn't suffer any harm. Here are examples of the types of harm patients can sue
for:
physical pain
mental anguish
additional medical bills, and
lost work and lost earning capacity.
The victim must have suffered damages, economic or non-economic, as a result of the
injury. Your sons hospitalization and treatment resulted in substantial costs medical
bills. You also had to take time off from work to attend to your son and his condition
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
ANUNCIACION VDA. DE GOLEZ, defendant-appellee.
FACTS:
That on or about the period comprised from December 12, 1956 to December 24,
1956, accused Anunciacion Vda. de Golez, without being duly licensed to practice
medicine and with reckless negligence and without taking due precaution, diagnose,
prescribe, and treat one Susana Tam, who had been suffering for sometime with bodily
ailment, knowing fully well that she is incompetent and not possessing the necessary
technical or scientific knowledge or skill, and as a consequence of such negligence and
carelessness and lack of medical skill, said Susana Tam died thereafter.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Anunciacion Vda. de Golez is guilty of crime of homicide through
reckless imprudence?
HELD:
Crime of illegal practice of medicine is a statutory offense wherein criminal intent
is taken for granted, so that a person may be convicted thereof irrespective of his
intention and in spite of his having acted in good faith and without malice; i.e., even if he
was not motivated by an evil desire to injure or hurt another, but by an honest desire to
cure or alleviate the pain of a patient. In fact, as defined by Section 2678 of the Revised
Administrative Code (the law then in force), the offense consists in the mere act of
practicing medicine in violation of the Medical Law, even if no injury to another, much

less death, results from such malpractice. When, therefore, the patient dies, the illegal
practitioner should be equally responsible for the death of his patient, an offense
independent of and distinct from the illegal practice of medicine.