SAMAHAN NG OPTOMETRISTS SA PILIPINAS, ILOCOS SUR-ABRA CHAPTER, EDUARDO MA. GUIRNALDA, DANTE G. PACQUING AND OCTAVIO A. DE PERALTA, PETITIONERS, VS. ACEBEDO INTERNATIONAL CORPORA…

Samahan ng Optometrists sa Pilipinas, Ilocos Sur-Abra Chapter versus Acebedo International Corporation

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by the Samahan ng Optometrists sa Pilipinas, Ilocos Sur-Abra Chapter, together with Eduardo Ma. Guirnalda, Dante G. Pacquing and Octavio A. de Peralta, against Acebedo International Corporation. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to reverse the Court of Appeals and to hold that a corporation engaged in the business of selling optical wares violates the old Optometry Law when it employs licensed optometrists in its optical shops. The case matters because it draws the line between the corporation that sells eyeglasses and the optometrist who examines eyes — a line every Bar candidate must be able to draw when asked who may lawfully practice a profession reserved to natural persons.

Procedural History

Acebedo applied to the Mayor of Candon, Ilocos Sur, for a permit to open and operate a branch of Acebedo Optical. The Samahan opposed the application on the ground that a juridical entity is not qualified to practice optometry. The Mayor created a committee composed of Guirnalda, Pacquing and de Peralta to pass upon the application. The committee denied the application and ordered Acebedo to close its establishment. Acebedo moved for reconsideration, which was denied.

Acebedo then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, but that petition was referred to the Regional Trial Court of Candon, Ilocos Sur, Branch 23, presided over by Judge Gabino Balbin, Jr. The trial court dismissed Acebedo's petition and held that the operations of Acebedo involved the practice of optometry, precluded by the old Optometry Law, and that the veil of corporate fiction could be pierced.

Acebedo appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court. The appellate court held that the corporation was not itself practicing optometry, and that the optometrists employed by it were the ones practicing their profession. Acebedo's motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence the petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Facts

On February 22, 1991, Acebedo International Corporation filed an application with the Office of the Mayor of Candon, Ilocos Sur, for a permit to open and operate a branch of Acebedo Optical in that municipality. The Samahan ng Optometrists sa Pilipinas opposed the application, contending that Acebedo is a juridical entity not qualified to practice optometry. Acebedo answered that it is not the corporation but the optometrists employed by it who would be practicing optometry.

On April 17, 1991, the Mayor created a committee composed of Guirnalda, Pacquing and de Peralta to pass on the application. On September 26, 1991, the committee denied the application and ordered Acebedo to close its establishment within fifteen days. Acebedo's motion for reconsideration was denied on November 14, 1991, and it was ordered to close within ten days.

An ocular inspection of the shop revealed that it was manned by an optometrist, a receptionist and a laboratory technician; that there were shelves of eyeglasses, benches where clients wait for their turn to be examined, an examination room complete with an optical chair and optical charts, and an optical laboratory. There was also a banner advertising free consultations. On these facts the trial court found that Acebedo was operating an optical shop contrary to law, and that the veil of corporate fiction could be pierced because it cannot be used to shield an illegal activity.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that Acebedo International Corporation does not violate the Optometry Law when it employs optometrists to engage in the practice of optometry under its name and for its behalf.
• Whether or not the old Optometry Law prohibits a corporation from hiring optometrists, such that the hiring amounts to a practice of optometry by the corporation itself.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of the old Optometry Law, Republic Act Number 1998, provides:

No person shall practice or attempt to practice optometry as defined in this Act, without holding a valid certificate of registration as optometrist issued to him by the Board of Examiners in Optometry herein created and in accordance with the provisions hereof.

This is the provision the petitioners invoke, and the Court reads it as a prohibition addressed to natural persons who must hold a certificate of registration, not to corporations that hire them.

Section 5 of the Revised Optometry Law, Republic Act Number 8050, provides:

No person shall practice optometry as defined in Section 3 of this Act nor perform any of the acts constituting the practice of optometry as set forth in Section 4 hereof, without having been first admitted to the practice of this profession under the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations.

The Court examines this later law as well and finds in it no prohibition against the hiring of optometrists by corporations.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court holds that the petition lacks merit. The fact that Acebedo hires optometrists who practice their profession in the course of their employment in its optical shops does not translate into a practice of optometry by Acebedo itself. Acebedo is a corporation organized to conduct the business of selling optical lenses and eyeglasses. Its clientele would largely be persons with defective vision who need proper lenses, and determining the proper lenses to sell entails the employment of optometrists trained for that purpose. But the corporation's business is not the determination itself of the proper lenses; its business is the buying and importing of eyeglasses and lenses and selling them to consumers.

On the second issue, the Court holds that for the petitioners' argument to hold water, there must be a clear showing that the old Optometry Law prohibits a corporation from hiring optometrists. The Court reviews that law and finds nothing therein to support the claim. The prohibition is addressed to natural persons, as the appellate court reasoned, quoting the law:

No person shall practice or attempt to practice optometry as defined in this Act, without holding a valid certificate of registration as optometrist issued to him by the Board of Examiners in Optometry herein created and in accordance with the provisions hereof.

The Court adds that even under the Revised Optometry Law it finds no prohibition against the hiring by corporations of optometrists. All told, there is no law that prohibits the hiring by corporations of optometrists, or considers such hiring as a practice by the corporation itself of the profession of optometry.

Doctrine

The practice of optometry is reserved to natural persons who hold a valid certificate of registration; the prohibition in the Optometry Law is addressed to them and cannot be enlarged to bar corporations from employing licensed optometrists. A corporation engaged in selling optical wares does not itself practice optometry merely because it hires optometrists to examine customers and determine the proper lenses, for the corporation's business remains the buying and selling of optical products. The separate personality of the corporation and its employees is respected where no illegal activity is shown, and the veil of corporate fiction is not pierced on a mere inference of professional practice.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, with costs against the petitioners, thereby affirming the ruling that Acebedo International Corporation does not violate the Optometry Law by employing optometrists.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the prohibition against practicing optometry is addressed to natural persons who must hold a certificate of registration, and it does not bar a corporation from hiring optometrists. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between a corporation's business of selling optical wares and the profession of optometry practiced by its employed optometrists, and to test when the corporate veil may be pierced.