Antolin PDF

4/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 623
G.R. No. 165036. July 5, 2010.*
HAZEL MA. C. ANTOLIN, petitioner, vs. ABELARDO T.

DOMONDON, JOSE A. GANGAN, and VIOLETA J. JOSEF,
respondents.
G.R. No. 175705. July 5, 2010.*
HAZEL MA. C. ANTOLIN, petitioner, vs. ANTONIETA

FORTUNA-IBE, respondent.
Professional Regulation Commission; Administrative Law; Exhaustion

of Administrative Remedies; Mandamus; Any claim for re-correction or
revision of a party’s board examination cannot be compelled by mandamus
—the function of reviewing and re-assessing an examinee’s answers to the
examination questions is a discretionary function of the Board, not a
ministerial and mandatory one, hence, not within the scope of the 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, 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 institu-
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017192c3b8961a88bb80003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/20
* FIRST DIVISION.
164
164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Antolin vs. Domondon
tion 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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The remedy of a party from the refusal of
the Board of Accountancy to release the Examination Papers should have
been through an appeal to the Professional Regulation Commission.—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, the PRC has the power
to promulgate rules and regulations to implement policies for the regulation
of the accounting profession. 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.
Same; Same; Same; The Professional Regulation Commission’s
(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.—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 and not to instances where documents are
being requested. Not only is this posi-
165
VOL. 623, JULY 5, 2010 165
tion 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. 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.
Same; Same; Same; 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; Issues of law—such as whether an
examinee has a constitutional right to demand access to the Examination
Papers—cannot be resolved with finality by the administrative officer.—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. 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. However, the principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies is subject to exceptions, among which is when only
a question of law is involved. 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.
Same; Moot and Academic Issues; 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; A person’s
belated passing of the Certified Public Accountant (CPA) Board Exams does
not automatically mean that her interest in the Examination Papers has
become mere superfluity.—We now turn to
166
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. 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. And since every citizen possesses the inherent right to be
informed by the mere fact of citizenship, 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.
Same; Right to Information; In determining whether 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, as 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.—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, 150 SCRA 530 (1987): 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.
167
VOL. 623, JULY 5, 2010 167
Same; Same; National board examinations such as the Certified Public

Accountant (CPA) Board Exams are matters of public concern; 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.—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.
PETITIONS for review on certiorari of the decisions of the Court of

Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Sycip, Salazar, Hernandez and Gatmaitan for petitioner.
Valdez, Domondon & Associates for respondents Domondon, et
al.
168

Castillo, Laman, Tan, Pantaleon and San Jose for respondent

Fortuna-Ibe.
DEL CASTILLO, J.:

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 October 29, 1997; out of 6,481
examinees, only 1,171 passed. Unfortunately, petitioner did not
make it. When the results were released, she received failing grades
in four out of the seven subjects.2

_______________
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.
169
VOL. 623, JULY 5, 2010 169

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 November 3, 1997, petitioner
was shown her answer sheets, but these consisted merely of shaded
marks, so she was unable to determine why she failed the exam.4
Thus, on November 10, 1997, she again wrote to the Board to
request for copies of (a) the questionnaire in each of the seven
subjects (b) her answer sheets; (c) the answer keys to the
questionnaires, and (d) an explanation of the grading system used in

each subject (collectively, the Examination Papers).5
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
_______________
3 Id., at p. 69.
4 Id., at p. 70.
5 Id., at p. 71.
170

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
xxxx
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 January 12, 1998, petitioner filed a Petition for

Mandamus with Damages against the Board of Accountancy and its
members10 before the Regional Trial Court
_______________
6 Id., at p. 72.
7 Id., at p. 38.
8 Id., at pp. 73-78.
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.
171
VOL. 623, JULY 5, 2010 171

(RTC) of Manila. The case was raffled to Branch 33, and docketed
as Civil Case No. 98-86881. The Petition included a prayer for the
issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction ordering the Board
of Accountancy and its members (the respondents) to furnish
petitioner with copies of the Examination Papers. Petitioner also
prayed that final judgment be issued ordering respondents to furnish
petitioner with all documents and other materials as would enable
her to determine whether respondents fairly administered the
examinations and correctly graded petitioner’s performance therein,
and, if warranted, to issue to her a certificate of registration as a
CPA.11
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 March 3, 1998, petitioner filed an Amended Petition (which
was admitted by the RTC), where she included the following
allegation in the body of her petition:
_______________
11 Rollo (G.R. No. 175705), pp. 34-42.

12 CA Rollo (CA G.R. SP No. 76498), pp. 62-70.
13 Id., at pp. 76-90.
172

“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 June 23, 1998, respondents filed a Manifestation and Motion
to Dismiss Application for Writ of Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction, on the ground that petitioner had taken and passed the
May 1998 CPA Licensure Examination and had taken her oath as a
CPA.15 Petitioner filed her Opposition on July 8, 1998.16
Subsequently, on October 29, 1998, respondents filed their Answer
with Counterclaim to the amended petition. They reiterated their
original allegations and further alleged that there was no cause of
action because at the time the Amended Petition was admitted, they
had ceased to be members of the Board of Accountancy and they
were not in possession of the documents sought by the petitioner.17
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
_______________
14 Id., at pp. 91-93.

15 Id., at pp.76-90.
16 Id., at pp. 120-123.
17 Id., at pp. 127-130.
173
VOL. 623, JULY 5, 2010 173

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 Damages19 where she finally impleaded the PRC as respondent
and included the following plea in her prayer:
“WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays that:

xxxx
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 June 21, 2002, the trial court dismissed the petition on the
ground that the petition had already become moot, since petitioner
managed to pass the 1998 CPA Board examinations.20 Petitioner
sought reconsideration21 which was granted by the trial court in its
Omnibus Order22 dated November 11, 2002. The Omnibus Order
provides in part:
“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
_______________
18 Id., at p. 131.
19 Id., at pp. 150-159.
20 Id., at pp. 36-38 penned by Judge Reynaldo G. Ros.
21 Id., at pp. 215-227 on August 26, 2002, private respondents filed their
Comment/Opposition; id., at pp. 234-241. Petitioner filed her Reply, id., at pp. 242-249.
22 Id., at pp. 29-30.
174

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 June 20, 2002 is
reconsidered and set aside. The Professional Regulation Commission is
ordered to preserve and safeguard the following documents:
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-G.R. SP No. 76498, a petition filed by respondents
Domondon, Gangan, and Josef on April 11, 2003;
_______________
23 Id., at p. 30.
24 Id., at p. 33.
175
VOL. 623, JULY 5, 2010 175

b) CA-G.R. SP No. 76546, a petition filed by respondent Ibe on

April 30, 2003; and
c) CA-G.R. 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 Decision25 in CA-G.R. 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-
G.R. 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
_______________
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
August 24, 2004.
176

CA-G.R. SP No. 76498 and CA-G.R. 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 Constitution29 as well as the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees30
support her right to de-
_______________
28 Rollo (G.R. No. 175075), pp. 89-90.

29 Article III, Sec. 7 provides:
Section 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 as 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.
Article XI, Sec. 1 provides:
Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at
all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility,
integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest
lives.
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
177
VOL. 623, JULY 5, 2010 177

mand 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
_______________
(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, February 2, 1989 (Minute Resolution).
178

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
34
Decree No. 223, 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.
_______________
32 Id.
33 Lemi v. Valencia, 135 Phil. 185, 193; 26 SCRA 203, 210-211 (1968); Subido v.
Hon. Ocampo, 164 Phil. 438, 447-448; 72 SCRA 443, 452-453 (1976).
34 Creating The Professional Regulation Commission And Prescribing Its Powers
And Functions (1973).
35 See also Section 5(a), which provides:
179
VOL. 623, JULY 5, 2010 179

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 investigations36 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,
_______________
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.
xxxx
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; 160 SCRA 848, 856
(1988).
180

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
_______________
38 Merida Water District v. Bacarro, G.R. No. 165993, September 30, 2008, 567
SCRA 203, 209.
39 Laguna CATV Network, Inc. v. Hon. Maraan, 440 Phil. 734, 740; 392 SCRA
221, 226 (2002).
40 Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr., 252 Phil. 264, 269; 170 SCRA 256, 263 (1989).
41 Castro v. Secretary of Education, G.R. No. 132174, August 20, 2001, 363
SCRA 417.
181
VOL. 623, JULY 5, 2010 181

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
_______________
42 See Gancho-on v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, 337 Phil. 654, 658; 271
SCRA 204, 208 (1997); Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Pascua, 456 Phil. 425, 436; 409
SCRA 195, 202 (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; 426 SCRA 91, 97
(2004).
43 Bantay Republic Act or BA-RA 7941 v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
177271 & 177314, May 4, 2007, 523 SCRA 1, 14-15.
44 Tañada v. Hon. Tuvera, 220 Phil. 422, 433-434; 136 SCRA 27, 36 (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 pp. 214-215.
182

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.”
_______________
46 Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, 234 Phil. 521, 535; 150 SCRA 530, 541
(1987).
183
VOL. 623, JULY 5, 2010 183

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 December 11, 2006 and February 16, 2004 Decisions of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 76546
_______________
47 Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, 360 Phil. 133, 160;

299 SCRA 744, 770 (1998).
184

and CA-G.R. SP No. 76498, respectively, are hereby SET ASIDE.

The November 11, 2002 and January 30, 2003 Orders of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 33, in Civil Case No. 98-
86881 are AFFIRMED. The case is remanded to the Regional Trial
Court for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
Corona (C.J., Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro

and Perez, JJ., concur.
Petitions granted, judgments set aside.
Notes.—Different cutoff scores in the National Medical

Admission Test (NMAT) for different school years may be dictated
by differing conditions obtaining during those years. Thus, the
appropriate cutoff score for a given year may be a function of such
factors as the number of students who have reached the cutoff score
established the preceding year; the number of places available in
medical schools during the current year; the average score attained
during the current year; the level of difficulty of the test given during
the current year, and so forth. To establish a permanent and
immutable cutoff score regardless of changes in circumstances from
year to year, may well result in an unreasonable rigidity. (Tablarin
vs. Gutierrez, 152 SCRA 730 [1987])
The Professional Regulation Commission has no authority to
dictate on the reviewees as to how they should prepare themselves
for the licensure examinations. They cannot be restrained from
taking all the lawful steps needed to assure the fulfillment of their
ambition to become public accountants. They have every right to
make use of their faculties in attaining success in their endeavors.
They should be allowed to enjoy their freedom to acquire useful
knowledge that will promote their personal growth. (Lupangco vs.
Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 848 [1988])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Antolin PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Antolin PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Antolin PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4/19/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 623

G.R. No. 165036. July 5, 2010.*

HAZEL MA. C. ANTOLIN, petitioner, vs. ABELARDO T.

G.R. No. 175705. July 5, 2010.*

HAZEL MA. C. ANTOLIN, petitioner, vs. ANTONIETA

Professional Regulation Commission; Administrative Law; Exhaustion

164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Antolin vs. Domondon

VOL. 623, JULY 5, 2010 165

Antolin vs. Domondon

tion myopic and self-serving, it is bereft of either statutory or jurisprudential

Antolin vs. Domondon

VOL. 623, JULY 5, 2010 167

Antolin vs. Domondon

Same; Same; National board examinations such as the Certiﬁed Public

PETITIONS for review on certiorari of the decisions of the Court of

168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Castillo, Laman, Tan, Pantaleon and San Jose for respondent

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

importantly, they are formative; examinations are intended to be part

VOL. 623, JULY 5, 2010 169

Subject Petitioner’s Grade

Convinced that she deserved to pass the examinations, she wrote

questionnaires, and (d) an explanation of the grading system used in

“Sec. 36. An examinee shall be allowed to have access or to go over

170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Second, Acting Chairman Domondon clariﬁed that the Board was

“Sec. 20. Illegal, Immoral, Dishonorable, Unprofessional Acts.—The

Proceedings before the Regional Trial Court

Undeterred, on January 12, 1998, petitioner ﬁled a Petition for

VOL. 623, JULY 5, 2010 171

11 Rollo (G.R. No. 175705), pp. 34-42.

172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

14 Id., at pp. 91-93.

VOL. 623, JULY 5, 2010 173

passed the May CPA Licensure 1998 Examination and had

“WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays that:

174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Respondents ﬁled a motion for reconsideration which was

VOL. 623, JULY 5, 2010 175

b) CA-G.R. SP No. 76546, a petition ﬁled by respondent Ibe on

In its December 11, 2006 Decision25 in CA-G.R. SP No. 76546,

176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

CA-G.R. SP No. 76498 and CA-G.R. SP No. 76546 were brought

28 Rollo (G.R. No. 175075), pp. 89-90.

VOL. 623, JULY 5, 2010 177

mand access to the Examination Papers. Furthermore, she claims

Propriety of Writ of Mandamus

“After deliberating on the petition in relation to the other pleadings ﬁled

ratings of the petitioners from their present failing grades to higher or

178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the familiar doctrine requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies. Apart

For a writ of mandamus to issue, the applicant must have a well-

VOL. 623, JULY 5, 2010 179

review, coordinate, integrate and approve the policies, resolutions, rules

Petitioner posits that no remedy was available because the PRC’s

Section 5. Powers of the Commission.—The powers of the Commission are as

180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

it was in the best position to resolve questions addressed to its area