Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • The Board of Medical Education v. Alfonso - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Mark Genesis Rojas
    332 views2 pages
    The Board of Medical Education filed a petition to nullify a restraining order issued by a regional trial court judge against the closure of the Philippine Muslim-Christian College of Medicine Foundation. The Commission on Medical Education had conducted inspections of the College and found it did not meet minimum standards, recommending closure. The Board allowed the College to continue operating until May 1989. The College appealed but the decision was affirmed. The College then filed a civil case against the Secretary of Education, obtaining an injunction against closure. The Supreme Court ruled the injunction invalid, as decisions of the Secretary on whether institutions meet standards are not subject to judicial review, and the facts supported the Secretary's decision to close the College due to failures to meet standards over multiple

    Original Description:

    The Board of Medical Education v. Alfonso - Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Board of Medical Education filed a petition to nullify a restraining order issued by a regional trial court judge against the closure of the Philippine Muslim-Christian College of Medicine Foundation. The Commission on Medical Education had conducted inspections of the College and found it did not meet minimum standards, recommending closure. The Board allowed the College to continue operating until May 1989. The College appealed but the decision was affirmed. The College then filed a civil case against the Secretary of Education, obtaining an injunction against closure. The Supreme Court ruled the injunction invalid, as decisions of the Secretary on whether institutions meet standards are not subject to judicial review, and the facts supported the Secretary's decision to close the College due to failures to meet standards over multiple

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    332 views2 pages

    The Board of Medical Education v. Alfonso - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Mark Genesis Rojas
    The Board of Medical Education filed a petition to nullify a restraining order issued by a regional trial court judge against the closure of the Philippine Muslim-Christian College of Medicine Foundation. The Commission on Medical Education had conducted inspections of the College and found it did not meet minimum standards, recommending closure. The Board allowed the College to continue operating until May 1989. The College appealed but the decision was affirmed. The College then filed a civil case against the Secretary of Education, obtaining an injunction against closure. The Supreme Court ruled the injunction invalid, as decisions of the Secretary on whether institutions meet standards are not subject to judicial review, and the facts supported the Secretary's decision to close the College due to failures to meet standards over multiple

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    The Board of Medical Education v.

    Alfonso

    Facts: Petitioners, the Board of Medical Education pray for a writ of certiorari to nullify and set aside the
    order issued by respondent Judge Alfonso, Regional Trial Court, Antipolo, restraining the enforcement of
    petitioner Quisumbing's order of closure of the respondent Philippine Muslim-Christian College of
    Medicine Foundation, Inc.

    The Commission on Medical Education conducted a study of all medical schools in the Philippines. The
    report of the Commission showed that the College fell very much short of the minimum standards set for
    medical schools . Thus, recommended the closure of the school., school disputed these findings as
    biased and discriminatory. The, Board subsequently allowed the College to continue its operations but
    only until May, 1989, after which it was to be closed, this decision being "final and unappealable."

    College appealed the decision to the Office of the President, imputing grave abuse of discretion to the
    Secretary. Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig, Jr., finding "no reason to disturb" the contested
    decision, affirmed it. the College went to court. It filed a civil case in the court of respondent Judge
    Alfonso against Secretary Quisumbing in her capacity as Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports,
    questioning the decision as illegal, oppressive, arbitrary and discriminatory and applied for a writ of
    preliminary injunction to restrain its implementation.

    His Honor ruled that the inspection that the inspection was done in an arbitrary and haphazard manner
    by a team of inspectors who had already prejudged the school. Hence the present petition, assailing the
    order of injunctio .

    Issue: Whether or not the restraining order given by Judge Alfonso is valid?

    Ruling: No. There is no law authorizing an appeal from decisions or orders of the Secretary of Education,
    Culture and Sports to this Court or any other Court. It is not the function of this Court or any other Court
    to review the decisions and orders of the Secretary on the issue of whether or not an educational
    institution meets the norms and standards required for permission to operate and to continue operating
    as such. On this question, no Court has the power or prerogative to substitute its opinion for that of the
    Secretary. Indeed, it is obviously not expected that any Court would have the competence to do so.

    The only authority reposed in the Courts in the matter is the determination of whether or not the
    Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports has acted within the scope of powers granted him by law and
    the Constitution. As long as it appears that he has done so, any decision rendered by him should not and
    will not be subject to review and reversal by any court.

    In any case, the recorded facts quite clearly fail to support the College's claim of grave abuse of
    discretion containing the order of closure, and on the contrary convincingly show the challenged
    decision to be correct. From 1985, no less than five (5) surveys were conducted of respondent institution
    to determine its compliance with the minimum standards established for a medical college.

    Given these facts, and it being a matter of law that the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports
    exercises the power to enjoin compliance with the requirements laid down for medical schools and to
    mete out sanctions where he finds that violations thereof have been committed, it was a grave abuse of
    discretion for the respondent judge to issue the questioned injunction and thereby thwart official action,
    in the premises correctly taken, allowing the College to operate without the requisite government
    permit.

    You might also like