[ G. R. No. 40100. September 06, 1934 ] 60 Phil. 536
[ G. R. No. 40100. September 06, 1934 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. GUALBERTO SANTOS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
MALCOLM, J.:
The legal question here to be decided is whether the holder of a license to practise medicine who has paid the privilege tax corresponding thereto is entitled to practise dentistry without first having obtained a certificate of registration as dentist and having paid the privilege tax therefor. In the trial court the defendant, a medical practitioner, was convicted of a violation of sections 1453 and 1473 (c) of the Administrative Code, and was sentenced to pay a fine of P25, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and the costs, and was also ordered to pay the tax for the period during which he practised the profession of dentistry illegally.
The defendant is a physician residing in Bulan, Sorsogon, who has there practised his profession and paid the corresponding privilege taxes. In 1931, he announced himself publicly as a medico-dentista. In his office he extracted and treated teeth. Among other things, he placed crowns on the teeth of his patients. For work of this nature he received remuneration.
The Philippine Legislature has provided distinct laws to regulate the practice of medicine and the practice of dentistry. Each law contains specific and varying requirements. Each law is made more mandatory in nature by the use of the words “no person shall practise medicine (dentistry) etc.” The comity between the two laws is maintained by the provision in the Medical Law that the inhibition against practising medicine by uncertified persons shall not be construed to affect any “legally registered dentist exclusively engaged in practising dentistry” and by the provision in the Dental Law that the inhibition against the practice of dentistry by uncertified persons shall not be “construed to interfere with the ligitimate practice of physicians and surgeons conducted in conformity with the provisions of the Medical Law.” (See Administrative Code, Chapter 31, Medical Law, and Chapter 32, Dental Law.) In addition, the Internal Revenue Law (Administrative Code, Chapter 40), specifies different amounts for privilege taxes to be collected from medical -practitioners and dental surgeons.
The two cases which have been particularly addressed to this question reached conflicting results. In State of Rhode Island vs. Beck ([1898], 45 L. R. A., 269), the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, held that the “Authority to practise medicine and surgery under Gen. Laws, chap. 165, includes the right to practise dentistry as a branch of surgery, without having complied with the requirements specially provided by Gen. Laws, chap. 155, as amended by Pub. Laws, chap. 470, as a condition for practising dentistry.” In the later case of State of Minnesota vs. Taylor ([1908], 19 L. R. A., NS., 877), the Supreme Court of Minnesota held that “A person who is licensed to ‘practise medicine and surgery’ under the statutes of the state cannot, by virtue thereof, ‘practise dentistry’ without securing a license as a dentist, as required by chap. 117, p. 127, Gen. Laws 1907.” In the case last cited, reference was made to the previous Rhode Island decision in the following language: “The reasoning does not carry conviction to our minds, and we cannot regard the case as an authority which should be followed. The recent cases recognize the two professions, as separate and distinct.” In this connection, it is worthy of mention that the opinion in the Minnesota case was delivered by Mr. Justice Elliot who soon after became a member of this court. The Minnesota case is on all fours with the present case, and we think that the rule there announced should be followed in this jurisdiction. (See further 6 Op. Atty. Gen., p. 407, and Reffuss, Dental Jurisprudence, p. 142.)
It of course must be conceded that medicine and dentistry overlap just as other professions and sciences do. Indeed it may further be conceded that the practice of medicine is broader in scope than the practice of dentistry. There may be operations upon the jaws that are within the legitimate profession both of the general surgeon and the dentist. But that is not the point. The point is that the Legislature for reasons of public policy has approved legislation dividing dentistry from medicine. It was in the thought of the legislative body that men who engage in the treatment of the dental organs should receive special preparation, should be specially licensed to practise that particular profession, and should pay a special occupation tax. The training is different. The law relative thereto is different., With this the situation, to hold that the physician can, without complying with the law as to registration and taxation, practise dentistry, would be to take away all the rewards from the man skilled in the science of dentistry, and would be violative of the letter and spirit of the Dental Law. We believe that it would only be just to follow the leading authority, the law, and the intention of the Legislature.
We rule that the holder of a license to practise medicine who has paid the privilege tax corresponding thereto is not entitled to practise dentistry without first having obtained a certificate of registration as dentist and having paid the privilege tax therefor. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant.
Street, Villa-Real, Vickers, Imperial, Butte, and Diaz, JJ., concur.