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.