Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Colet (respondents)
G.R. No. 122241
July 30, 1996
Facts:
a.) Congress passed and enacted a law entitled An Act Regulating the
Practice of Optometry Education, Integrating Optometrists, and for
Other Purposes, which is also known as the Revised Optometry Law of
1995 or R.A. No. 8050.
b.) On July 31, 1995, herein private respondents filed a petition for
declaratory relief and for prohibition and injunction with a prayer for a
temporary restraining order. They provided grounds on their petition
alleging that: 1.) there were unauthorized insertion and addition of
provisions without the knowledge of the Senate panel thus it derogates
the orderly procedure of the legislative process and vitiates the
legislative content; 2.) that R.A. No. 8050 violates the principle against
undue delegation of legislative power; 3.) that R.A. No. 8050 violates
the due process clause of the constitution and; 4.) that R.A No. 8050
violates the guaranty of freedom of speech and press.
c.) In the undergoing examination of the petition of the herein
respondents, the body of petition revealed the members of the petition
which were Anacbedo Optical Co., Inc.; Optometry Practitioner of the
Philippines (OPAP); Cenevis Optometrist Association (COA); Association
of Christian-Muslim Optometrist (ACMO); and Southern Mindanao
Optometrist Association of the Philippines (SMOAP) and being
represented by its president. However, the body of petition gave no
such details on the juridical personality and the addresses of the
associations except for Acebedo Co., Inc. What is listed are the names
of the presidents, their profession and home addresses.
d.) As for the herein petitioners, they filed an opposition to the
application for preliminary injunction and alleged that: 1.) respondents
do not possess the requisite right as would entitle them to the relief
they sought; 2.) respondents have not shown legal existence or
capacity to file a case; 3.) R.A. No. 8050 carries no injurious effect and;
4.) respondents failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionally
in favor of R.A. No. 8050.
e.) The Regional Trial Court granted the writ of preliminary injunction of
the herein respondents and the court is inclined to find prima facie,
that the petitioners have legal rights which will be affected by the
Revised Optometry Law, and that in its operation, said law is likely to
inflict serious and irreparable injury to such legal rights. The herein
petitioners then now filed the special action civil action for certiorari
obligations under R.A. 8050. The Court concluded that the respondent
Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion when he issued the writ of
preliminary injunction restraining the implementation of R.A. 8050. The
Court granted to annul and set aside the writ of preliminary injunction.
Note:
Section 4, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court- Capacity - Facts showing
the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to
sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an
organized association of persons that is made a party, must be
averred. A party desiring to raise an issue as to the legal existence of
any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued in a
representative capacity, shall do so by specific denial, which shall
include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the
pleader's knowledge.
Locus standi- means the right to bring an action, to be heard in court,
or to address the Court on a matter before it.