Board of Optometry (petitioners) vs.

Colet (respondents)
G.R. No. 122241
July 30, 1996
Facts:
a.) Congress passed and enacted a law entitled An Act Regulating the
Practice of Optometry Education, Integrating Optometrists, and for
Other Purposes, which is also known as the Revised Optometry Law of
1995 or R.A. No. 8050.
b.) On July 31, 1995, herein private respondents filed a petition for
declaratory relief and for prohibition and injunction with a prayer for a
temporary restraining order. They provided grounds on their petition
alleging that: 1.) there were unauthorized insertion and addition of
provisions without the knowledge of the Senate panel thus it derogates
the orderly procedure of the legislative process and vitiates the
legislative content; 2.) that R.A. No. 8050 violates the principle against
undue delegation of legislative power; 3.) that R.A. No. 8050 violates
the due process clause of the constitution and; 4.) that R.A No. 8050
violates the guaranty of freedom of speech and press.
c.) In the undergoing examination of the petition of the herein
respondents, the body of petition revealed the members of the petition
which were Anacbedo Optical Co., Inc.; Optometry Practitioner of the
Philippines (OPAP); Cenevis Optometrist Association (COA); Association
of Christian-Muslim Optometrist (ACMO); and Southern Mindanao
Optometrist Association of the Philippines (SMOAP) and being
represented by its president. However, the body of petition gave no
such details on the juridical personality and the addresses of the
associations except for Acebedo Co., Inc. What is listed are the names
of the presidents, their profession and home addresses.
d.) As for the herein petitioners, they filed an opposition to the
application for preliminary injunction and alleged that: 1.) respondents
do not possess the requisite right as would entitle them to the relief
they sought; 2.) respondents have not shown legal existence or
capacity to file a case; 3.) R.A. No. 8050 carries no injurious effect and;
4.) respondents failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionally
in favor of R.A. No. 8050.
e.) The Regional Trial Court granted the writ of preliminary injunction of
the herein respondents and the court is inclined to find prima facie,
that the petitioners have legal rights which will be affected by the
Revised Optometry Law, and that in its operation, said law is likely to
inflict serious and irreparable injury to such legal rights. The herein
petitioners then now filed the special action civil action for certiorari

and prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or

temporary restraining order.
Issue:
1.) Whether or not the private respondents have the locus standi to
question the constitutionality of R.A. No. 8050.
2.) Whether or not there is an absence of a valid cause of action for
either declaratory relief or prohibition.
Ruling:
1.) No. The private respondents have no legal standing or capacity to
question the constitutionality of the questioned law. The Supreme
Court has cited that under Article 44 of the Civil Code, an association is
considered a juridical person if the law grants it a personality separate
and distinct from that of its members. If it is not to be proven as such,
it cannot bring any civil action. In the case at bar, it was founded that
the private respondents did not claim that they are juridical identities
as they chose to remain silent on the issue of the juridical personality
of their associations, having completely disregarded Section 4, Rule
8 of the Rules of Court. Without juridical entity, the private respondents
are not considered to be a real party in interest.
2.) The Supreme Court stated that the questioned civil case must be of
a failure for the reason of the missing requisites of a special civil action
for declaratory relief. The requisites as a special civil action for
declaratory relief are as follows: 1.) the existence of a justiciable
controversy; 2.) the controversy is between persons whose interests
are adverse; 3.) that the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in
the controversy; and 4.) that the issue invoked is ripe for judicial
determination. What is lacking is the first and the fourth requisite.
Also, the Court stated that the unbending rule in constitutional law that
courts will not assume jurisdiction over a constitutional question unless
the following requisites must be first satisfied and these are: 1.) there
must be an actual case or controversy involving a conflict or rights
susceptible of judicial determination; 2.) the constitutional question
must be raised by a proper party; 3.) the constitutional question must
be raised at the earliest opportunity; and 4.) the resolution of the
constitutional question must be necessary to the resolution of the case.
An actual case or controversy means as existing case or controversy
that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjenctural or
anticipatory. It cannot be disputed that there is yet no actual case or
controversy involving all or any of the private respondents and all or
any of the petitioners on the other, with respect to rights and

obligations under R.A. 8050. The Court concluded that the respondent
Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion when he issued the writ of
preliminary injunction restraining the implementation of R.A. 8050. The
Court granted to annul and set aside the writ of preliminary injunction.

Note:
Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court- Capacity - Facts showing
the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to
sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an
organized association of persons that is made a party, must be
averred. A party desiring to raise an issue as to the legal existence of
any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued in a
representative capacity, shall do so by specific denial, which shall
include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the
pleader's knowledge.
Locus standi- means the right to bring an action, to be heard in court,
or to address the Court on a matter before it.