KEMBAR78
Acebedo Optical Vs CA Case Digest | PDF | Glasses | Optometry
Scribd
Upload
413 views1 page

Acebedo Optical Vs CA Case Digest

The petitioner, Acebedo Optical Company, was granted a business permit by the City Mayor of Iligan but with special conditions imposed, including that it could not examine patients or sell prescription eyeglasses without an independent optometrist's prescription. The Samahan ng Optometrist sa Pilipinas requested cancellation of the permit, alleging violations. The issue was whether the City Mayor has authority to impose special conditions. The Court ruled that while local governments have delegated police power to issue permits, that power must be exercised in accordance with law and due process. It found no policy forbidding the commercialization of optometry and recognized the general practice of advertising and selling eyeglasses. The petition was granted

Uploaded by

KJ
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
413 views1 page

Acebedo Optical Vs CA Case Digest

The petitioner, Acebedo Optical Company, was granted a business permit by the City Mayor of Iligan but with special conditions imposed, including that it could not examine patients or sell prescription eyeglasses without an independent optometrist's prescription. The Samahan ng Optometrist sa Pilipinas requested cancellation of the permit, alleging violations. The issue was whether the City Mayor has authority to impose special conditions. The Court ruled that while local governments have delegated police power to issue permits, that power must be exercised in accordance with law and due process. It found no policy forbidding the commercialization of optometry and recognized the general practice of advertising and selling eyeglasses. The petition was granted

Uploaded by

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

ACEBEDO OPTICAL COMPANY, INC., petitioner,vs.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Hon. MAMINDIARA MANGOTARA, in his capacity as Presiding
Judge of the RTC, 12th Judicial Region, Br. 1, Iligan City; SAMAHANG OPTOMETRIST Sa PILIPINAS —
Iligan City Chapter, LEO T. CAHANAP, City Legal Officer, and Hon. CAMILO P. CABILI, City Mayor of
Iligan, respondents.

FACTS: Petitioner applied for a business permit with the office of the City Mayor of Iligan. Such
application was approved and a business permit was granted to them with the following conditions:

1. Since it is a corporation, Acebedo cannot put up an optical clinic but only a commercial store; 2.
Acebedo cannot examine and/or prescribe reading and similar optical glasses for patients, because
these are functions of optical clinics; 3. Acebedo cannot sell reading and similar eyeglasses without a
prescription having first been made by an independent optometrist (not its employee) or independent
optical clinic. Acebedo can only sell directly to the public, without need of a prescription, Ray-Ban and
similar eyeglasses;4. Acebedo cannot advertise optical lenses and eyeglasses, but can advertise Ray-Ban
and similar glasses and frames; 5. Acebedo is allowed to grind lenses but only upon the prescription of
an independent optometrist
On December 1988, Samahan ng Optometrist sa Pilipinas (SOPI) Iligan chapter requested for the
cancellation/revocation of the permit granted contending that Acebedo violated the conditions set forth
by the business permit. On July 19 1989, the City Mayor sent petitioner a notice of resolution and
cancellation of business permit effective as of said date and giving the petitioner 3 months to wind up its
affairs.

The petitioner contents that the City Mayor had no authority to impose special conditions on its
business permit.

ISSUE: Whether or not the City Mayor has the authority to impose special conditions in the grant of
business permits as a valid exercise of police power

RULING: The State, through the legislature, has delegated the exercise of police power to local
government units, as agencies of the State, in order to effectively accomplish and carry out the declared
objects of their creation. This delegation of police power is embodied in the general welfare clause of
the Local Government Code. The issuance of business licenses and permits by a municipality or city is
essentially regulatory in nature. The authority, which devolved upon local government units to issue or
grant such licenses or permits, is essentially in the exercise of the police power of the State within the
contemplation of the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code.

However, the power to grant or issue licenses or business permits must always be exercised in
accordance with law, with utmost observance of the rights of all concerned to due process and equal
protection of the law. While a business may be regulated, such regulation must, however, be within the
bounds of reason. There is no public policy forbidding the commercialization of optometry, as in law and
medicine, and recognized the general practice of making it a commercial business by advertising and
selling eyeglasses.

PETITION IS GRANTED.

You might also like