Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
HAZEL MA. C. ANTOLIN, |
|
G.R. No. 165036 |
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- versus - |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABELARDO T. DOMONDON, |
|
|
|
JOSE A. GANGAN, and |
|
|
|
VIOLETA J. JOSEF, |
|
|
|
Respondents. |
|
|
|
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -x |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HAZEL MA. C. ANTOLIN |
|
G.R. No. 175705 |
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- versus - |
|
VELASCO,
JR., |
|
|
|
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PEREZ, JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
ANTONIETA FORTUNA-IBE, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
July 5, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - x
D E C I S I O N
Examinations have a two-fold
purpose. First, they are summative; examinations
are intended to assess and record what and how much the students have learned. Second, and perhaps more importantly, they are
formative; examinations are intended to be part and parcel of the learning
process. In a perfect system, they are
tools for learning. In view of the
pedagogical aspect of national examinations, the need for all parties to fully
ventilate their respective positions, and the view that government transactions
can only be improved by public scrutiny, we remand these cases to the trial
court for further proceedings.
Factual
Antecedents
Petitioner took
the accountancy licensure examinations (the Certified Public Accountant [CPA]
Board Exams) conducted by the Board of Accountancy (the Board) in October 1997.[1]
The examination results were released on
|
Subject |
Petitioner’s Grade |
|
Theory of Accounts |
65 % |
|
Business Law |
66 % |
|
Management Services |
69 % |
|
Auditing Theory |
82 % |
|
Auditing Problems |
70 % |
|
Practical Accounting I |
68 % |
|
Practical Accounting II |
77 % |
Convinced that
she deserved to pass the examinations, she wrote to respondent Abelardo T.
Domondon (Domondon), Acting Chairman of the Board of Accountancy, and requested
that her answer sheets be re-corrected.[3]
On
Acting Chairman
Domondon denied petitioner’s request on two grounds: first, that Section 36,
Article III of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Regulation and Practice
of Professionals, as amended by Professional Regulation Commission (PRC)
Resolution No. 332, series of 1994, only permitted access to the petitioner’s answer
sheet (which she had been shown previously), and that reconsideration of her
examination result was only proper under the grounds stated therein:
Sec.
36 An examinee shall be allowed to have
access or to go over his/her test papers or answer sheets on a date not later
than thirty (30) days from the official release of the results of the
examination. Within ten (10) days from such date, he/she may file his/her
request for reconsideration of ratings. Reconsideration of rating shall be
effected only on grounds of mechanical error in the grading of his/her
testpapers or answer sheets, or malfeasance.[6]
Second, Acting
Chairman Domondon clarified that the Board was precluded from releasing the Examination
Papers (other than petitioner’s answer sheet) by Section 20, Article IV of PRC
Resolution No. 338, series of 1994, which provides:
Sec.
20. Illegal, Immoral, Dishonorable, Unprofessional Acts – The hereunder
acts shall constitute prejudicial, illegal, grossly immoral, dishonorable, or
unprofessional conduct:
A. Providing, getting, receiving, holding,
using or reproducing questions
x
x x x
3. that have been given in the examination
except if the test bank for the subject has on deposit at least two thousand (2,000)
questions.[7]
After a further
exchange of correspondence,[8]
the Board informed petitioner that an investigation was conducted into her exam
and there was no mechanical error found in the grading of her test papers.[9]
Proceedings
before the Regional Trial Court
Undeterred, on
On February 5,
1998, respondents filed their Opposition to the Application for a Writ of
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, and argued, inter alia, that petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought,
that the respondents did not have the duty to furnish petitioner with copies of
the Examination Papers, and that petitioner had other plain, speedy, adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, namely, recourse to the PRC.[12]
Respondents also filed their Answer with
Compulsory Counterclaim in the main case, which asked that the Petition for
Mandamus with Damages be dismissed for lack of merit on the following grounds:
(1) petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies; (2) the petition
stated no cause of action because there was no ministerial duty to release the
information demanded; and (3) the constitutional right to information on
matters of public concern is subject to limitations provided by law, including
Section 20, Article IV, of PRC Resolution No. 338, series of 1994.[13]
On
The
allegations in this amended petition are meant only to plead a cause of action
for access to the documents requested, not for re-correction which petitioner
shall assert in the proper forum depending on, among others, whether she finds
sufficient error in the documents to warrant such or any other relief. None of
the allegations in this amended petition, including those in the following
paragraphs, is made to assert a cause of action for re-correction.[14]
If only to underscore the fact that
she was not asking for a re-checking of her exam, the following prayer for
relief was deleted from the Amended Petition: “and, if warranted, to issue to
her a certificate of registration as a CPA.”
On
Ruling of the
Regional Trial Court
In an Order
dated October 16, 1998, the trial court granted respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
Petitioner’s Application for a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction (not
the main case), ruling that the matter had become moot since petitioner passed
the May CPA Licensure 1998 Examination and had already taken her oath as a CPA.[18]
Undaunted,
petitioner sought and obtained leave to file a Second Amended Petition
for Mandamus with Damages[19]
where she finally impleaded the PRC as respondent and included the following
plea in her prayer:
WHEREFORE,
petitioner respectfully prays that:
x
x x x
2. Judgment be issued –
(a)
commanding respondents to give petitioner all documents and other
materials as would enable her to determine whether respondents fairly
administered the same examinations and correctly graded petitioner’s
performance therein and, if
warranted, to make the appropriate revisions on the results of her examination.
(Emphasis ours)
On
On the motion for reconsideration filed by the
petitioner, the Court is inclined to reconsider its Order dismissing the
petition. The Court agrees with the
petitioner that the passing of the petitioner in the subsequent CPA examination
did not render the petition moot and academic because the relief “and if
warranted, to issue to her a certificate of registration as Certified Public
Accountant” was deleted from the original petition. As regard the issue of whether the petitioner
has the constitutional right to have access to the questioned documents, the
Court would want first the parties to adduce evidence before it can resolve the
issue so that it can make a complete determination of the rights of the
parties.
The
Court would also want the Professional Regulation Commission to give its side
of the case the moment it is impleaded as a respondent in the Second Amended
Petition for Mandamus filed by the petitioner which this Court is inclined to
grant.
As
to the Motion for Conservatory Measures filed by the petitioner, the Court
denies the same. It is clear that the
PRC has in custody the documents being requested by the petitioner. It has also an adequate facility to preserve
and safeguard the documents. To be sure
that the questioned documents are preserved and safeguarded, the Court will
order the PRC to preserve and safeguard the documents and make them available
anytime the Court or petitioner needs them.
WHEREFORE,
the Order of this Court dated
a)
Questionnaire
in each of the seven subjects comprising the Accountancy Examination of
October, 1997;
b)
Petitioner’s
Answer Sheets; and
c)
Answer keys
to the questionnaires.
SO ORDERED.[23]
Respondents
filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied.[24]
Proceedings
before the Court of Appeals
The RTC Decisions led to the
filing of three separate petitions for certiorari before the Court of Appeals
(CA):
(a)
CA-GR SP No. 76498, a petition filed by respondents
Domondon, Gangan, and Josef on
(b)
CA-GR SP No. 76546, a petition filed by respondent Ibe on
(c)
CA-GR SP No. 76545, a petition filed by the Board of Accountancy and
PRC.
It is the first
two proceedings that are pending before us. In both cases, the CA set aside the RTC
Decisions and ordered the dismissal of Civil Case No. 98-8681.
Ruling of the
Court of Appeals
In its December
11, 2006 Decision[25]
in CA-GR SP No. 76546, the CA ruled that the petition has become moot in view
of petitioner’s eventual passing of the 1998 CPA Board Exam. In CA-GR SP No. 76498, the CA found, in a
Decision dated February 16, 2004,[26]
that (i) Section 20, Article IV of PRC Resolution No. 338 constituted a valid
limitation on petitioner’s right to information and access to government
documents; (ii) the Examination Documents were not of public concern, because
petitioner merely sought review of her failing marks; (iii) it was not the ministerial or mandatory
function of the respondents to review and reassess the answers to examination
questions of a failing examinee; (iv) the case has become moot, since
petitioner already passed the May 1998 CPA Board Examinations and took her oath
as a CPA; and (v) petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies,
because, having failed to secure the desired outcome from the respondents, she did
not elevate the matter to the PRC before seeking judicial intervention.[27]
CA-GR SP No.
76498 and CA-GR SP No. 76546 were brought before us by the petitioner and
docketed as G.R. Nos. 165036 and 175705, respectively. The cases were then consolidated, in view of
the similarity of the factual antecedents and issues, and to avoid the
possibility of conflicting decisions by different divisions of this Court.[28]
Issues
Before us,
petitioner argues that she has a right to obtain copies of the examination
papers so she can determine for herself why and how she failed and to ensure
that the Board properly performed its duties. She argues that the Constitution[29]
as well as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees[30] support
her right to demand access to the Examination Papers. Furthermore, she claims that there was no need
to exhaust administrative remedies, since no recourse to the PRC was available,
and only a pure question of law is involved in this case. Finally, she claims that her demand for access
to documents was not rendered moot by her passing of the 1998 CPA Board
Exams.
Our Ruling
Propriety of
Writ of Mandamus
At the very outset let us be clear of
our ruling. Any claim for re-correction
or revision of her 1997 examination cannot be compelled by mandamus. This much was made evident by our ruling in Agustin-Ramos v. Sandoval,[31]
where we stated:
After
deliberating on the petition in relation to the other pleadings filed in the
proceedings at bar, the Court resolved to DENY said petition for lack of merit.
The petition at bar prays for the setting aside of the Order of respondent
Judge dismissing petitioners’ mandamus action to compel the other respondents
(Medical Board of Examiners and the Professional Regulation Commission) “to
reconsider, recorrect and/or rectify the board ratings of the petitioners from
their present failing grades to higher or passing marks.” The function of reviewing and re-assessing the petitioners’ answers
to the examination questions, in the light of the facts and arguments presented
by them x x x is a discretionary function of the Medical Board, not a
ministerial and mandatory one, hence, not within the scope of the writ of
mandamus. The obvious remedy of the petitioners from the adverse
judgment by the Medical Board of Examiners was an appeal to the Professional
Regulation Commission itself, and thence to the Court of Appeals; and since
they did not apply for relief to the Commission prior to their institution of
the special civil action of mandamus in the Regional Trial Court, the omission
was fatal to the action under the familiar doctrine requiring exhaustion of
administrative remedies. Apart from the obvious undesirability of a procedure
which would allow Courts to substitute their judgment for that of Government
boards in the determination of successful examinees in any administered
examination – an area in which courts have no expertise – and the circumstance
that the law declares the Court of Appeals to be the appropriate review Court,
the Regional Trial Court was quite correct in refusing to take cognizance of an
action seeking reversal of the quasi-judicial action taken by the Medical Board
of Examiners.[32] (Emphasis
ours)
For a writ of mandamus to issue, the applicant must have a well-defined,
clear, and certain legal right to the thing demanded. The corresponding duty of the respondent to
perform the required act must be equally clear.[33]
No such clarity exists here; neither
does petitioner’s right to demand a revision of her examination results. And despite petitioner’s assertions that she
has not made any demand for re-correction, the most cursory perusal of her
Second Amended Petition and her prayer that the respondents “make the
appropriate revisions on the results of her examination” belies this claim.
Like the claimants in Agustin, the
remedy of petitioner from the refusal of the Board to release the Examination
Papers should have been through an appeal to the PRC. Undoubtedly, petitioner had an adequate remedy
from the Board’s refusal to provide her with copies of the Examination Papers. Under Section 5(a) of Presidential
Decree No. 223,[34]
the PRC has the power to promulgate rules and regulations to implement policies
for the regulation of the accounting profession.[35]
In fact, it is one such regulation (PRC
Resolution No. 338) that is at issue in this case. In addition, under Section 5(c), the PRC has
the power to
review, coordinate, integrate and approve the
policies, resolutions, rules and regulations, orders or decisions promulgated
by the various Boards with
respect to the profession or occupation under their jurisdictions including the
results of their licensure examinations but their decisions on administrative
cases shall be final and executory unless appealed to the Commission within
thirty (30) days from the date of promulgation thereof.
Petitioner posits that no remedy was
available because the PRC’s power to “review” and “approve” in Section 5(c)
only refers to appeals in decisions concerning administrative investigations[36]
and not to instances where documents are being requested. Not only is this
position myopic and self-serving, it is bereft of either statutory or
jurisprudential basis. The PRC’s quasi-legislative
and enforcement powers, encompassing its authority to review and approve
“policies, resolutions, rules and regulations, orders, or decisions” cover more
than administrative investigations conducted pursuant to its quasi-judicial
powers.[37]
More significantly, since the PRC itself
issued the resolution questioned by the petitioner here, it was in the best
position to resolve questions addressed to its area of expertise. Indeed, petitioner could have saved herself a
great deal of time and effort had she given the PRC the opportunity to rectify
any purported errors committed by the Board.
One of the
reasons for exhaustion of administrative remedies is our well-entrenched
doctrine on separation of powers, which enjoins upon the Judiciary a becoming
policy of non-interference with matters falling primarily (albeit not
exclusively) within the competence of other departments.[38] Courts,
for reasons of law, comity and convenience, should not entertain suits unless
the available administrative remedies have first been resorted to and the
proper authorities have been given an appropriate opportunity to act and
correct their alleged errors, if any, committed in the administrative forum. [39]
However, the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies is
subject to exceptions, among which is when only a question of law is involved.[40]
This is because issues of law – such as
whether petitioner has a constitutional right to demand access to the
Examination Papers - cannot be resolved with finality by the administrative
officer.[41]
Issues of
Mootness
We now turn to the
question of whether the petition has become moot in view of petitioner’s having
passed the 1998 CPA examination. An issue becomes
moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy, so that
a declaration on the issue would be of no practical use or value.[42]
In this
jurisdiction, any citizen may challenge any attempt to obstruct the exercise of
his or her right to information and may seek its enforcement by mandamus.[43] And since every citizen possesses the
inherent right to be informed by the mere fact of citizenship,[44]
we find that petitioner’s belated passing of the CPA Board Exams does not
automatically mean that her interest in the Examination Papers has become mere
superfluity. Undoubtedly, the constitutional question presented, in view of the
likelihood that the issues in this case will be repeated, warrants review.[45]
The crux of this case is whether petitioner may compel access to the
Examination Documents through mandamus. As always, our inquiry must begin with the
Constitution. Section 7, Article
III provides:
Sec.7. The right of the people to information on matters of public
concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and
papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well to
government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be
afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
Together with the guarantee of the right to information, Section 28,
Article II promotes full disclosure and transparency in government, viz:
Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable
conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full
public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.
Like all the constitutional guarantees, the right to information is not
absolute. The people's right to information is limited to "matters of
public concern," and is further "subject to such limitations as may
be provided by law." Similarly, the
State's policy of full disclosure is limited to "transactions involving
public interest," and is "subject to reasonable conditions prescribed
by law". The Court has always
grappled with the meanings of the terms "public interest" and
"public concern." As observed
in Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission:[46]
In determining whether x x x a particular information
is of public concern there is no rigid test which can be applied. "Public
concern" like "public interest" is a term that eludes exact
definition. Both terms embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the public may
want to know, either because these directly affect their lives, or simply
because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen. In
the final analysis, it is for the courts to determine on a case by case basis
whether the matter at issue is of interest or importance, as it relates to or
affects the public.
We have also
recognized the need to preserve a measure of confidentiality on some matters,
such as national security, trade secrets and banking transactions, criminal
matters, and other confidential matters.[47]
We are prepared to
concede that national board examinations such as the CPA Board Exams are
matters of public concern. The populace
in general, and the examinees in particular, would understandably be interested
in the fair and competent administration of these exams in order to ensure that
only those qualified are admitted into the accounting profession. And as with
all matters pedagogical, these examinations could be not merely quantitative
means of assessment, but also means to further improve the teaching and
learning of the art and science of accounting.
On the other hand, we do realize
that there may be valid reasons to limit access to the Examination Papers in
order to properly administer the exam. More than the mere convenience of the
examiner, it may well be that there exist inherent difficulties in the
preparation, generation, encoding, administration, and checking of these
multiple choice exams that require that the questions and answers remain
confidential for a limited duration. However, the PRC is not a party to these
proceedings. They have not been given an
opportunity to explain the reasons behind their regulations or articulate the
justification for keeping the Examination Documents confidential. In view of the far-reaching implications of
this case, which may impact on every board examination administered by the PRC,
and in order that all relevant issues may be ventilated, we deem it best to
remand these cases to the RTC for further proceedings.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petitions are GRANTED. The
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO Associate
Justice |
JOSE
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] The examination questions were of the multiple choice type, where each question was followed by four possible answers to choose from. The examinee was required to indicate his or her answer by shading in pencil one of four small “circles” corresponding to each choice.
[2] Rollo (G.R. No.175705), p. 73.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Rollo (G.R. No. 165036), pp. 107-108.
[10] Namely, Conchita L. Manabat, Abelardo T. Domondon, Reynaldo D. Gamboa, Jose V. Ramos, Violeta J. Josef, Antonieta Fortuna-Ibe, and Jose Gangan.
[11] Rollo (G.R. No. 175705), pp. 34-42.
[12] CA rollo (CA G.R. SP No. 76498), pp. 62-70.
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25] Rollo (G.R. No. 175705), pp. 22-33; penned by Associate Justice Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa and concurred in by Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Lucas P. Bersamin.
[26] Rollo (G.R. No. 165036), pp. 37-53; penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao and concurred in by Associate Justice Danilo B. Pine and Presiding Justice Cancio C. Garcia.
[27] Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was
denied in a Resolution dated
[28] Rollo (G.R. No. 175075), pp. 89-90.
[29] Article III, Sec. 7 provides:
Article XI, Sec. 1 provides:
[30] Republic Act No. 6713, An Act Establishing A Code Of Conduct And
Ethical Standards For Public Officials And Employees, To Uphold The
Time-Honored Principle Of Public Office Being A Public Trust, Granting
Incentives And Rewards For Exemplary Service, Enumerating Prohibited Acts And
Transactions And Providing Penalties For Violations Thereof And For Other
Purposes (1989).
Section 5. Duties of Public Officials and Employees. - In the
performance of their duties, all public officials and employees are under
obligation to:
x x x x
(e) Make
documents accessible to the public. - All public documents must be made
accessible to, and readily available for inspection by, the public within
reasonable working hours.
[31] G.R. No. 84470,
[32]
[33] Lemi
v.
[34] Creating The
Professional Regulation Commission And Prescribing Its Powers And Functions
(1973).
[35] See also Section 5(a), which provides:
Section 5. Powers
of the Commission. The powers of the Commission are as follows:
a)
To administer, implement and enforce the regulatory policies of the National
Government with respect to the regulation and licensing of the various
professions and occupations under its jurisdiction including the maintenance of
professional and occupational standards and ethics and the enforcement of the
rules and regulations relative thereto.
x x x x
m) To exercise general supervision over
the members of the various Boards;
[36] Pursuant to the Rules and Regulations Governing the Regulation and Practice of Professionals.
[37] See Lupangco
v. Court of Appeals, 243 Phil. 993, 1002 (1988).
[38] Merida
Water District v. Bacarro, G.R. No.
165993,
[39] Laguna CATV Network, Inc. v. Hon. Maraan, 440 Phil. 734, 740 (2002).
[40] Valmonte
v. Belmonte, Jr., 252 Phil. 264, 269 (1989).
[41] Castro v.
Secretary of Education, G.R. No. 132174,
[42] See Gancho-on v. Secretary Gloria,
337 Phil. 654, 658 (1997); Philippine
Airlines, Inc. v. Pascua, 456
Phil. 425, 436 (2003); David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. Nos.
171396, 171409, 171485, 171483, 171400, 171489, 171424, May 3, 2006, 489 SCRA
160, 213-214; Soriano Vda. De Dabao
v. Court of Appeals, 469 Phil. 928, 937 (2004).
[43]
[44] Tañada v. Hon. Tuvera, 220 Phil. 422, 433-434 (1985).
[45] Even if we were to assume that
the issue has become moot, we have repeatedly enumerated the exceptions to the
rule on mootness, thus:
The "moot and
academic" principle is not a magical formula that can automatically
dissuade the courts in resolving a case. Courts will decide cases, otherwise
moot and academic, if: first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution;
second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public
interest is involved; third, when the constitutional issue raised requires
formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the
public; and fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. David
v. Macapagal-Arroyo, supra note 42 at 214-215.
[46] Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, 234 Phil. 521, 535 (1987).
[47] Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, 360 Phil. 133, 160 (1998).