Scribd
Upload
126 views2 pages

Sobrejuanite-Flores vs. Pilando, Jr. Case Digest

Uploaded by

nicolesbmillan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
126 views2 pages

Sobrejuanite-Flores vs. Pilando, Jr. Case Digest

Uploaded by

nicolesbmillan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW

FLORENTINA CAOYONG SOBREJUANITE-FLORES, petitioner


vs.
COMMISSIONERS TEOFILO S. PlLANDO, JR., respondent
GR No. 251816 | November 23, 2021

Justice Mario V. Lopez

Facts:
The case stemmed from the petition for review certiorari filed by Florentina
Caoyong Sobrejuanite-Flores assailing the May 21, 2019 Decision of the Court of
Appeals, which upheld the validity of the administrative regulation which is
Republic Act No. 10029, or the Philippine Psychology Act of 2009, where Section
16(c) provides:

(c) Psychologists or employees holding positions as Psychologists presently


employed in various government and private agencies, who have a bachelor's degree
in psychology, accumulated a minimum of ten (10) years of work experience in the
practice of psychology as a psychologist, and have updated their professional
education in various psychology-related functions.

On May 7, 2015, Florentina applied for registration as a psychologist without


examination but the BOP rejected her application because she had insufficient
work experience and had not updated her professional education. Aggrieved,
Florentina appealed to the PRC, which also denied her appeal for her failure to
substantiate her claim that she worked as a psychologist for a minimum
accumulated period of 10 years and for her failure to update her professional
education. She elevated her case to the CA, but her appeal was also denied.

In the case at bar, the Supreme Court stressed that Florentina is not assailing the
propriety of the Section 16 of RA No. 10029 on registration without examination but
only the validity of Section 16(c) of its IRR.

Florentina averred that the requirement under Section 16(c) is unconstitutional


because the law itself did not provide for such an onerous and discriminatory
provision.

Issue/s:
Whether or not Section 16(c) of RA No. 10029 is valid.

Ruling:
The Court held that RA No. 10029 satisfied the completeness test and standard test
which renders valid the delegation of legislative powers. The law states the policy

Case Digest by Jamie Nicole S.B. Millan


1
POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW
to guide the implementing agencies in carrying out its provisions. The clear
legislative intent is to regulate the practice of psychology and to protect the public
from incompetent individuals offering psychological services.

Administrative regulations are enacted by administrative agencies to implement


and interpret the law that they are entrusted to enforce to have the force of law
and are entitled to respect. The said rules and regulations, such as the IRR of RA
10029, partake of the nature of a statute and are just as binding as if they have been
written in the statute itself. They have the force and effect of law and enjoy the
presumption of constitutionality and legality until they are set aside ·with finality
in an appropriate case by a competent court.

In Calalang v. Williams, the Court noted that the legislature cannot delegate its
power to make the law; but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine
some fact or state of things upon which the law makes, or intends to make its own
action depend.

The power of subordinate legislation does not mean the absolute transmission of
legislative powers to administrative agencies. A valid delegation of legislative
powers must comply with the completeness test and the sufficient standard test:
The law is complete when it sets the policy to be executed leaving nothing to the
delegate except to implement it. On the other hand, the law lays down a sufficient
standard when it provides adequate guidelines or limitations to determine the
boundaries of the delegate's authority and prevent the delegation from running to
riot.

Case Digest by Jamie Nicole S.B. Millan


2

You might also like