Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 87 views

    Alfafara V Acebedo Optical Company

    Uploaded by

    Maria Cristina Martinez
    This case involves an optometrist suing Acebedo Optical Co for allegedly practicing optometry without a license by employing licensed optometrists. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Acebedo, finding that as a corporation it could not itself practice optometry as only natural persons can be licensed. The Supreme Court affirmed, explaining that while optometrists employed by Acebedo practiced optometry individually, Acebedo as a corporation was merely in the business of selling optical products and not the practice of optometry directly or indirectly through its employees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Alfafara V Acebedo Optical Company

    Uploaded by

    Maria Cristina Martinez
    87 views1 page
    This case involves an optometrist suing Acebedo Optical Co for allegedly practicing optometry without a license by employing licensed optometrists. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Acebedo, finding that as a corporation it could not itself practice optometry as only natural persons can be licensed. The Supreme Court affirmed, explaining that while optometrists employed by Acebedo practiced optometry individually, Acebedo as a corporation was merely in the business of selling optical products and not the practice of optometry directly or indirectly through its employees.

    Original Description:

    CORPO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves an optometrist suing Acebedo Optical Co for allegedly practicing optometry without a license by employing licensed optometrists. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Acebedo, finding that as a corporation it could not itself practice optometry as only natural persons can be licensed. The Supreme Court affirmed, explaining that while optometrists employed by Acebedo practiced optometry individually, Acebedo as a corporation was merely in the business of selling optical products and not the practice of optometry directly or indirectly through its employees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    87 views1 page

    Alfafara V Acebedo Optical Company

    Uploaded by

    Maria Cristina Martinez
    This case involves an optometrist suing Acebedo Optical Co for allegedly practicing optometry without a license by employing licensed optometrists. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Acebedo, finding that as a corporation it could not itself practice optometry as only natural persons can be licensed. The Supreme Court affirmed, explaining that while optometrists employed by Acebedo practiced optometry individually, Acebedo as a corporation was merely in the business of selling optical products and not the practice of optometry directly or indirectly through its employees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    39 Alfafara versus Acebedo Optical Company

    Nature of the Case: This is a petition for review on certiorari.


    Facts: Optometrist sued Acebedo Optical Co., Inc. alleging it engaged in the practice of
    Optometry through the optometrists it employed. Acebedo itself is not licensed to practice
    Optometry. The Court held that Acebedo is a juridical person (corporation), and only natural
    person can engage in the practice of Optometry. RTC rendered judgement in favor of
    Optometrists. When appealed, the Court of Appeals, reversed and dismissed the complaint of
    Optometrists.
    Issue: Was Acebedo Optical Co., Inc. engaged in the practice of Optometry?
    Held: NO.
    An optometrists is a person who has been certified by Board of Optometry and registered with
    the PRC as qualified to practice optometry in the Philippines. Thus, only natural person can
    engage in the practice of optometry and not corporations. Acebedo, which is not a natural
    person cannot take licensure examination for optometrists and therefore cannot be registered as
    an optometrist under R.A. No. 1998.
    In the case at bar, Acebedo is merely engaged in the business of selling optical products, not in
    the practice of optometry whether directly or indirectly through its hired optometrist
    It was pointed out in R.A. No. 1998 does not prohibit corporation from employing licensed
    optometrists. What it prohibits is the practice of optometry by individualswho do not have
    license to practice. The prohibition is addressed to natural persons who are required to have a
    valid certificate of registration as optometrist and who must be of good moral character.
    This Court affirmed the ruling of the appeals court and explained that even under R.A No. 8060
    (Revised Optometry Law) there is no prohibition against the hiring by corporations of
    optometrists. The fact that Acebedo hired Optometrists who practice their profession in the
    course of their employment in Acebedo’s Optical Shops did not mean that it was itself engaged
    in the practice of Optometry.
    While Optometrists are employees of Acebedo, their practice of Optometry is separate and
    distinct from the business of Acebedo of selling optical products. They are personally liable for
    the acts done in the course of their practice in the same way that if Acebedo is sued in court in
    connection with its business of selling optical products, the optometrists need not be impleaded
    as party defendants. In that regard, the Board of Optometry and PRC regulate their practice and
    have original jurisdiction over them.
    The Supreme Court held that for Acebedo to be entitled to a permit to do business as an optical
    shop because, although it had duly licensed optometrist in its employ, it did not apply for a
    license to engage in the practice of optometry as a corporate body or entity.
    The petition is denied for lack of showing that CA committed reversible error

    You might also like