DOCTRINE: The words "unprofessional conduct, immoral, or dishonorable conduct" shall be construed to include the following acts:

(1) Procuring, aiding or abeting a criminal abortion;

(2) advertising, either in his own name or in the name of any other person, firm, association, or corporation, in any written or printed paper, or document, of medical
business in which untruthful or improbable promises are made, or being employed by, or in the service of any person, firm, association or corporation so advertising, or
advertising in any obscene manner derogatory to good morals;
(3) habitual intemperance or addition to the use of morphine, opium, cocaine or other drugs having a similar effect;
(4) conviction of a crime or misdemeanor involving dishonorable conduct; and
(5) willfully betraying a professional secret."

TITLE FACTS ISSUE(S) RULING(S)

GOMEZ VS. VENTURA This is a petition for mandamus, filed by [RELATED TO TOPIC] YES.
plaintiff, DR. DOMINADOR GOMEZ, praying
G. R. No. 32441, March 29, Whether or not “illegaly prescribing Act No. 310 provided that the Board of medical
to annul the investigation proceedings and
1930 opium” is a cause for revocation of Examiners could revoke licenses for
particularly the decision of the Board of
medical license "unprofessional conduct," without defining
Medical Examiners of the Philippine Islands
forever revoking his license to practice the term. Act No. 1761 (the Opium Law)
provided that illegaly prescribing opium should
medicine and surgery. He orders the Board
be cause for revocation of medical licenses.
to restore his status as a Doctor.
If said section 9 has been repealed, it must be
TOPIC: Why was his license revoked? Violation of by Act No. 3111, which amends Act No. 2493
Opium law. He prescribed opium for a (Ad. Code, sec. 780), by an addition after the
patient whose physical condition does not words "unprofessional conduct" of the
GROUNDS FOR REPRIMAND / require the use of said drug. following:
SUSPENSION / REVOCATION OF
CERTIFICATE After trial the Court of First Instance of The words "unprofessional conduct, immoral,
Manila dismissed the complaint. or dishonorable conduct" as used in this
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
On appeal, counsel for plaintiff contended chapter shall be construed to include the
following acts: (1) Procuring, aiding or abeting
that:
a criminal abortion;
(2) advertising, either in his own name or in
1. The fiscal was not authorized to appear the name of any other person, firm,
and institute administrative proceedings association, or corporation, in any written or
against Dr. Dominador Gomez before the printed paper, or document, of medical
Board of Medical Examiners of the business in which untruthful or improbable
Philippines. promises are made, or being employed by, or
in the service of any person, firm, association
2. Section 9 of Act No. 2381, known as the or corporation so advertising, or advertising in
Opium Law, is unconstitutional, and
GER WORDS/ KEYWORD(S): therefore null and void because the law any obscene manner derogatory to good
contains two subjects morals;
OPIUM, MANDAMUS (3) habitual intemperance or addition to the
use of morphine, opium, cocaine or other
drugs having a similar effect;
(4) conviction of a crime or misdemeanor
involving dishonorable conduct; and
(5) willfully betraying a professional secret."

It cannot be seriously contended that aside

from the five examples specified there can be
no other conduct of a physician deemed
"unprofessional" conduct theretofore deemed
grounds for revocation licenses.

The maxim expressio unius est exclussio

alterius should be applied only as a means of
discovering legislative intent and should not be
permitted to defeat the plain indicated purpose
of the Legislature. If, therefore, there exists,
"unprofessional conduct" not specified in the
laws, with more reason does the criminal use
of opium remain a specific cause for
revocation of license.

[RELATED TO TOPIC]

Whether or not the fiscal was YES.

authorized to appear and institute
administrative proceedings against On his first contention, the law does not
Dr. Dominador Gomez require that the charges be preferred by a
public officer or by any specified person; it
even permits the Board of Medical Examiners
itself to require its executive officer to prefer
said charges. From the wording of the law we
infer that any person, including a public officer,
may prefer the charges referred to in the
above-quoted provision. Wherefore, the fact
that the charges were filed by Assistant Fiscal
Alfonso Felix of the City of Manila, does not
deprive the Board of Medical Examiners of
 jurisdiction to hear said charges and to take the
proper action according to law.

[KINDA RELATED TO TOPIC]

Whether Dr. Gomez may compel NO. It’s a matter of discretion.

the Board to reinstate him as a
doctor by mandamus As in the case of courts and judicial officers, it
is a rule of general application that mandamus
will not lie to review or control the acts of
executive officers and boards of state and
federal governments in respect of matters as to
which they are vested with discretion. In other
words, they cannot be compelled to act or
render a decision in any particular way, and this
is so, even though the exercise of this
discretion requires the construction and
interpretation of statutes. Where public
officials exercise their discretion, it is said that
their conclusions, although disputable, cannot
be reviewed by mandamus.

[NOT RELATED]

Whether or not Sec. 9 of Opium NO. The law is constitutional.

Law is unconstitutional
On his second contention, it is the Court’s
opinion that the matter in view in the provision
of said section it cannot be maintained that Act
No. 2381 includes more than one subject.

The penalty provided in said section for the

physician or dentist who prescribes opium for a
patient whose physical condition does not
require the use of said drug, is one of the
means employed by the Legislature to attain
the purpose of Act No. 2381, which is, to
prohibit unnecessary use of opium; it is one of
the details subordinate to the purpose in view.
Such punishment is not the end contemplated
in Act No. 2381, but, as we have just said, it is a
means employed to regulate the use of opium.

Fallo:

Finding no merit in the assignments of error,

the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with
costs against the appellant. So ordered.