DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS (DECS) v. SAN DIEGO (G.R. No. 89572)
December 21, 1989
FACTS: A student can only take the NMAT three times, the petitioner claims. Three (3) consecutive
failures bar retaking the NMAT. And he invokes the constitution.
The private respondent studied Zoology at University of the East. Three NMAT failures are claimed. His
retake request was denied due to the rule. Then he was admitted to the Valenzuela Regional Trial Court.
Accordingly, the challenged order was void on July 4, 1989. According to Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong,
the petitioner was denied medical school. A measure to limit medical school admission, the NMAT was
upheld in Tablarin v. Gutierrez.
That case was also dismissed. Due to the lack of mention of the "three-flunk rule,". The state's policing
power is clear. As a reminder, government intervention serves the public interest, not just a particular
class's interest, and is justified when the means used are reasonable and not oppressive.
Doctoring is a dream, not a right. The bridge is also longer near one's goal. The state must effectively use
its human resources. Use these resources for the community and yourself. A doctor can't jeopardize his
Unsuspecting lawyers should be warned. His destiny isn't a plumber or a barkeep. A student who excels
at piano cannot be forced into nursing. Not everyone deserves a good education. "Every citizen has the
right to choose a profession or course of study," the Constitution states. So the rule in question is legal.
No equal treatment is required under Article III, Section 1.
The NMAT and three-flunk rule distinguish medical students. Medicine is more regulated because it
touches people's lives. Accounting, like physicians, does not carry the same delicate responsibility and
does not require the same treatment. It's not enough to claim the Constitution's guarantee of quality
education. 5th NMAT flop. His hopelessness is admirable.
The state should intervene and direct students to courses that match their abilities. If we are not
intelligent, we may be "swamped with mediocrity."
ISSUE: Whether the three-flunk rule violates academic freedom, due process, and equal protection.
DECISION: The NMAT is a constitutionally mandated test designed to ensure only qualified applicants
are admitted to medical schools.
The State has the right and responsibility to ensure that the medical profession is free of incompetents
to whom patients may unwittingly entrust their lives and health. The three-flunk rule is intended to
protect medical schools and ultimately the medical profession from unqualified doctors.
Joselano Guevarra vs. Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala A.C. No. 7136
August 1, 2007
FACTS: Joselano Guevarra (plaintiff) filed a Complaint for Disbarment1 against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M.
Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala (respondent) on March 4, 2002 for "grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated
violation of the lawyer's oath."
Guevarra stated in his complaint:
His then-fiancee Irene Moje (Irene) introduced him to respondent as her friend who was married to
Marianne (sometimes spelled "Mary Ann") Tantoco, with whom he had three children.
"I love you," "I miss you," or "Meet you at Megamall" were some of the messages received by Irene
after he married Irene on October 7, 2000.
The complainant also noticed that Irene often went home late at night or early the next day, and that
she sometimes did not go home at all. When he asked where she was, she said she slept at her parents'
house in Binangonan, Rizal, or was working.
In February or March 2001, the complainant saw Irene and the respondent twice. He confronted them
again, and Irene fled the conjugal home.
On April 22, 2001, complainant showed up uninvited to Irene's birthday party with her family and
friends. Embarrassed, angry, and humiliated, he left immediately. Irene then went to the conjugal home
and took her personal belongings, furniture, and share of the household appliances.
The complainant soon noticed the respondent's and Irene's cars parked at No. 71-B 11th Street, New
Manila, where Irene lived as of April 2001. He also found out later that Irene was pregnant when his
friends saw her with respondent on or around January 18, 2002.
ISSUE: Whether or not concubinage or adultery is the reason for Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala's suspension.
DECISION: A lawyer should support the Constitution and obey the law, which means he should not use
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct or be convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude.
According to ART. 334 of the Revised Penal Code, “Any husband who keeps a mistress in a conjugal
dwelling, or has sexual intercourse with a woman who is not his wife, or cohabits with her in any other
place, is guilty of concubinage.”
CHI MING TSOI vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI G.R. No. 119190
January 16, 1997
FACTS: They married on May 22, 1988 at the Manila Cathedral in Intramuros. After the celebration
thereof and wedding reception, the newlyweds proceeded to the house of husband-defendant’s
mother. He went to bed, slept on one side, then turned his back and slept. Even on subsequent nights,
the newlyweds failed to consummate their union. A year passed with no attempts at sexual intercourse
between the couple. She claims she never saw her husband's or hers.
A urologist at the Chinese General Hospital, Dr. Eufamio Macalalag examined them on January 20, 1989.
However, the results of her husband's physical examination were kept secret as well. Only her husband
was prescribed medications, which were kept secret. The doctor did not treat her, but did ask her
husband to return, which he did not.
Anxious to end their marriage, the wife filed a case for annulment in Quezon City Regional Trial Court.
Because he deeply loves his wife, has no faults of his own, and there is still hope for reconciliation,
husband-defendant does not want his marriage annulled His wife is at fault, he claims, if their marriage
is annulled due to psychological incapacity. It was admitted by the husband-defendant that they had no
sexual contact between them from May 22, 1988 until March 15, 1989. Because she avoided him every
time he wanted to have sexual contact with her, and she removed his hands every time he caressed her
private parts, the defendant claims. His wife only had sex with him once because she was shaking and
disliked it, according to the defendant. So he paused. According to Dr. Sergio Alteza, Jr.'s medical report,
there is no evidence of impotency in the husband-defendant.
The trial court ruled the marriage nullified. Reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals on
appeal. Thus the petition.
ISSUE: Whether a couple's refusal to have sexual contact constitutes psychological incapacity.
DECISION: Psychological incapacity is defined as a couple refusing to have sexual relations. Procreation
of children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage, the Court says. Unfulfilled
obligations eventually destroy the marriage's integrity and wholeness. That one of the parties refused to
fulfill the above marital obligation for an extended period of time amounted to psychological incapacity,
the Court held in this case.