alfara v. acebedo
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 Alfara v. Acebedo
1/3
ALFARA VS. ACEBEDO
G.R. NO. 148384
FACTS OF THE CASE
Petitioners are optometrists. They brought, in their own behalf and in
behalf of 80 other optometrists, who are members of the Samahan ng
Optometrists sa Pilipinas-Cebu Chapter, an injunti!e suit in the "egional
Trial Court, #ranh $, Cebu City to enjoin respondent %ebedo Optial Co.,
&n. and its agents, representati!es, and'or employees from pratiing
optometry in the pro!ine of Cebu. &n their omplaint, they alleged that
respondent opened se!eral optial shops in Cebu and announed to the
publi, through lea(ets, newspapers, and other forms of ad!ertisement, the
a!ailability of )ready-to-wear* eyeglasses for sale at P+0.00 eah and free
ser!ies by optometrists in suh outlets. They laimed that, through theliensed optometrists under its employ, respondent had been engaging in
the pratie of optometry by eamining the human eye, analying the oular
funtions, presribing ophthalmi lenses, prisms, and ontat lenses and
onduting oular eerises, !isual trainings, orthoptis, prosthetis, and
other pre!enti!e or orreti!e measures for the aid, orretion, or relief of
the human eye. They ontended that suh ats of respondent were done in
!iolation of the Optometry /aw ".%. 1o. 2$$83 456and the Code of 7this for
Optometrists, promulgated by the #oard of 7aminers in Optometry on uly
22, 2$85. They sought payment to them of attorney9s fees, litigation
epenses, and the osts of the suit.4:6
The trial ourt at ;rst dismissed the suit but, on motion of petitioners,
reinstated the ation and granted their prayer for a writ of preliminary
injuntion and'or restraining order. Petitioners argued that the ase in!ol!ed
a pure
-
8/9/2019 Alfara v. Acebedo
2/3
Should %ebedobe entitled to a permit to do business as an optial shop
RULINGS
=herefore, the petition is >71&7> for la? of showing that the Court of
%ppeals ommitted a re!ersible error.
&n Samahan ngOptometrists sa Pilipinas, Ilocos Sur-Abra Chapter v.
Acebedo International Corporation,4256petitioners opposed respondent
%ebedo9s appliation for a muniipal permit to operate a branh in Candon,
&loos Sur. They brought suit to enjoin respondent %ebedo from employing
optometrists as this allegedly onstituted an indiret !iolation of ".%. 1o.
2$$8, whih prohibits orporations from eerising professions reser!ed only
to natural persons. The ommittee reated by the @ayor of Candon to pass
on %ebedo9s appliation denied the same and ordered the losure of
%ebedo optial shops. %ebedo appealed but its appeal was dismissed by
the trial ourt on the ground that it was pratiing optometry. On appeal, the
Court of %ppeals held that %ebedo was not operating as an optial lini nor
engaged in the pratie of optometry, although it employed liensed
optometrists. %ebedo simply dispensed optial and ophthalmi instruments
and supplies. &t was pointed out that ".%. 1o. 2$$8 does not prohibit
orporations from employing liensed optometrists. =hat it prohibits is the
pratie of optometry by indi!iduals who do not ha!e a liense to
pratie. The prohibition is addressed to natural persons who are re
-
8/9/2019 Alfara v. Acebedo
3/3
ats done in the ourse of his employment as an optometrist under the
following pro!isions of the Ci!il Code. Thus,
%rt. 28$. The agent who ats as suh is not personally liable to the party
with whom he ontrats, unless he epressly binds himself or eeeds the
limits of his authority without gi!ing suh party suAient notie of his
powers.
%rt. 2$20. The prinipal must omply with all the obligations whih the agent
may ha!e ontrated within the sope of his authority.
%s for any obligation wherein the agent has eeeded his power, the
prinipal is not bound eept when he rati;es it epressly or taitly.
This ontention li?ewise has no merit. =hile the optometrists are
employees of respondent, their pratie of optometry is separate and distint
from the business of respondent of selling optial produts. They are
personally liable for ats done in the ourse of their pratie in the same way
that if respondent is sued in ourt in onnetion with its business of selling
optial produts, the optometrists need not be impleaded as party
defendants. &n that regard, the #oard ofOptometry and the Professional
"egulation Commission regulate their pratie and ha!e elusi!e original
jurisdition o!er them.
This Court held that a business permit is issued primarily to regulate the
ondut of a business and, therefore, the City @ayor annot, through the
issuane of suh permit, regulate the pratie of a profession, li?e
optometry. This Court held %ebedo to be entitled to a permit to do business
as an optial shop beause, although it had duly liensed optometrists in its
employ, it did not apply for a liense to engage in the pratie of optometry
as a orporate body or entity.