THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 188646, September 21, 2016
GEORGE C. CORDERO, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF NURSING, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
JARDELEZA, J.:
The case before us traces its origin from the controversial June 2006 Philippine Regulatory Commission (PRC) Nursing Licensure Exams which involved leakage of actual examination questions, damaging the credibility of the professional examinations in the country and tarnishing the reputation of the Philippine nursing profession. One of the review centers involved in the controversy is INRESS Review Center (INRESS) headed by petitioner George C. Cordero (Cordero).
On November 16, 2006, Cordero received a Summons1 dated November 8, 2006 from the Board of Nursing (Board) requiring him to file his counter-affidavit/verified answer to the attached Formal Charge2 for violation of Section 15 (a) of Republic Act (RA) No. 89813 and Section 23 (a), (b) and (f) of Article IV of RA No. 9173.4 Both documents were signed by then Chairperson of the Board, Carmencita Abaquin (Abaquin). The Formal Charge described Cordero's violations as follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Being associated with the INRESS Review Center, you made known or caused to make known alone or together person/s, the licensure examination questions in Tests III and V of the June 2006 Nurse Licensure Examinations to your reviewees prior to the conduct of the said examination on June 11 and 12, 2006.In his Answer,6 Cordero argued that the Formal Charge was not supported by documentary evidence or sworn statements covering the testimony of witnesses which would support the charges.7 Hence, there is no basis for the finding of a prima facie case against him. It also failed to apprise him of the nature and cause of the accusations against him thus violating his right to due process.8 He averred that the Board, in initiating a motu proprio administrative investigation, failed to follow the provisions in filing a formal complaint in accordance with Resolution No. 06-342 (A)9 Series of 2006 or the PRC Rules of Procedure (PRC Rules).10 The Board did not also file the complaint with the Legal Division of the Central Office or a Regional Office of the Commission having territorial jurisdiction over him.11 Moreover, the Board is acting as a complainant 12chanrobleslaw
On June 8 and 9, 2006, prior to the conduct of the June 11 and 12, 2006 Nurse Licensure Examination, you and INRESS Review Center held a final coaching review session at a cinema in SM Manila. During the session, several topics were discussed through a powerpoint presentation where various questions on hypothetical scenarios and their corresponding answers were discussed. Among the topics discussed were on the subject Psych[i]atric Nursing (Test V)and Medical-surgical (Test III). Twenty five (25) items in Test III and ninety (90) items in Test V discussed during the aforesaid review session were actual test questions which came out in the June 2006 Nurse Licensure Examination. The powerpoint presentation disclosed that the same had identical contents with the photocopies of the various typewritten questions with corresponding choices of answers with an encircle on the prescribe answer and the one submitted by Ms. Anesia B. Dionisio to the Board of Nursing. A review of the answers given in Test V with the photocopies of various handwritten questions in Test III and Test V with the corresponding handwritten answers likewise confirmed the similarity in the answers in the powerpoint presentation. The power point presentation showed test questions on Test III (Psychiatric Nursing) and Test V (Medical Surgical), prepared by Board members Anesia B. Dionisio and Virginia D. Madeja.5chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Sec. 9. Powers, Functions and Responsibilities of the Various Professional Regulatory Boards. — The various, professional regulatory boards shall retain the following powers, functions and responsibilities:These powers are echoed in the provisions of RA No. 9173.57chanrobleslaw
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(a) To regulate the practice of the professions in accordance with the provisions of their respective professional regulatory laws; x x x (c) To hear and investigate cases arising from violations of their respective laws, the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder and their Codes of Ethics and, for this purpose, may issue summons, subpoena and subpoena duces tecum to alleged violators and/or witnesses to compel their attendance in such investigations or hearings: Provided, That, the decision of the Professional Regulatory Board shall, unless appealed to the Commission, become final and executory after fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice of judgment or decision; x x x (g) After due process, to suspend, revoke or reissue, reinstate certificate of registration or licenses for causes provided by law. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
Sec. 1. Complaint. - A complaint shall be in writing and under oath or embodied in an affidavit.Cordero points out that the Formal Charge was not subscribed under oath. It was not also filed by the office, section or division of the PRC where the respondent committed the actionable conduct or violation of the rule or regulation of the PRC or the Board.
Sec. 2. Who May File. — The complaint may be filed by any person, firm, partnership, association or corporation, through its duly authorized representative. The Commission or the Board may, motu proprio, initiate an administrative investigation, in which case, the complainant shall be the office, section, or division of the Commission where the respondent committed the actionable conduct or violation of the rule or regulation of the Commission or the Board.x x x
Sec. 5. Where to File a Complaint. - A complaint may be filed at the Legal and Investigation Division (Legal Division) of the Central Office or at the Regional Office of the Commission having territorial jurisdiction over the parties at the option of the complainant. (Emphasis supplied.)
x x x Well to remember, the case was an administrative case and as such, technical rules of procedure are liberally applied. In administrative cases, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied and administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense. The intention is to resolve disputes brought before such bodies in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner possible.62On the requirement that the complaint/Formal Charge be under oath, we agree with the Board that the signature of Chairperson Abaquin is sufficient, considering that it is the Board itself which is the complainant. In an administrative proceeding involving government employees, we ruled that an administrative charge filed by the head of chief of the office concerned need not be under oath, for it is only when the complaint be filed by another person that it be required to be under oath to protect respondents from malicious complaints filed only for the purpose of harassing them.63 In the same manner, there is no need for the formal charge to be under oath in this case since the Board itself initiated the charge and its Chairperson signed the same in her capacity as head of the Board of Nursing and under her oath of office. The danger of a malicious complaint is no longer present.
Neither is there merit in petitioner's assertion that he was denied the right to due process when the CSC Regional Office, according to him, acted as investigator, prosecutor, judge and executioner. He laments that Director Buenaflor who formally filed the charge nominally was also the hearing officer, and that prosecutor Arty. Anabelle Rosell was also the one who submitted the recommendation to the CSC for the dismissal of petitioner. Recall, however, that it was ultimately the Civil Service-Chairman who promulgated the decision. The report submitted by Atty. Resell based on the hearing where Director Buenaflor sat as hearing officer, was merely recommendatory in character to the Civil Service Commission itself. Such procedure is not unusual in an administrative proceeding.70 (Emphasis supplied.)In fact, the only prohibition under Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987 is that no hearing officer shall engage in both adjudicatory and prosecutory functions.71 Besides, any perceived error on the decision of the Board is appealable to the PRC, and thereafter, to the CA.72 Moreover, on a more practical note, the composition of the Board of Nursing changes every three years.73 The current Board is now composed of new members. Therefore, the evil of having a partial tribunal is no longer extant.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, p. 44.
2Id. at 30, 45-46. The Formal Charge was dated November 7, 2006, and docketed as Administrative Case No. 419.
3 The PRC Modernization Act of 2000.
Sec. 15. Penalties for Manipulation and Other Corrupt Practices in the Conduct of Professional Examinations -(a) Any person who manipulates or rigs licensure examination results, secretly informs or makes known licensure examination questions prior to the conduct of the examination or tampers with the grades in professional licensure examinations shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day to not more than twelve (12) years or a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to not more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or both such imprisonment and fine at the discretion of the court.4 The Philippine Nursing Act of 2002.
Sec. 23. Revocation and suspension of Certificate of Registration/Professional License and Cancellation of Special/Temporary Permit. - The Board shall have the power to revoke or suspend the certificate of registration/professional license or cancel the special/temporary permit of a nurse upon any of the following grounds:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(a) For any of the causes mentioned in the preceding section; (b) For unprofessional and unethical conduct;x x x (f) For violation of this Act, the rules and regulations, Code of Ethics for nurses and technical standards for nursing practice, policies of the Board and the Commission, or the conditions and limitations for the issuance of the temporarily/special permit; x x x
5Rollo, pp. 45-46.
6 CA rollo, pp. 60-67.
7Id. at 61.
8Id.
9 New Rules of Procedure in Administrative Investigations in the Professional Regulation Commission and the Professional Regulatory Boards.
10 CA rollo, p. 61.
11Id. at 62.
12Id.; rollo, p. 31.
13 CA rollo, pp. 62-63.
14Id. at 63.
15Id. at 63-64.
16Id. at 66.
17Id.
18 CA rollo p. 65.
19Id.
20 CA rollo, pp. 64-65.
21Rollo, p. 47. Pre-trial was scheduled as early as February 8, 2007 (CA rollo, p. 81), but Cordero's counsel asked that it be allowed to file a pleading about allegedly "some legal issues that should be resolved before conducting the trial," (id. at 83) which turned out to be his allegation of improper delegation by the PRC to the hearing officers, and a Motion for Inhibition (id. at 85-89) of the hearing officer of the PRC assigned to his case, on the ground that the same hearing officer is the counsel of PRC in the criminal case filed by the NBI-PRC against Cordero with the Department of Justice. These issues dragged on for months due to the several pleadings and manifestation of the parties. When the issue of inhibition was finally settled, Cordero once more raised the issue of jurisdiction and due process, the same issues which reached the Court in this petition.
22Rollo, pp. 47-50.
23Id. at 48.
24Id.
25cralawred Id.
26Id.
27 CA rollo, pp. 156-161.
28Id. at 156-157.
29 Sec. 1. Complainant. — The complainant shall be the office, section or unit of the Commission which initiates the action or where the respondent-examinee commits an infraction or violation of the law, rules and regulations, instructions or policies of the Commission or the Board.x x x
An administrative action against an examinee shall commence with a formal charge which shall be written in a clear, simple and concise language so as to apprise him of the nature and cause of the complaint against him and to enable him to intelligently prepare his defense.
30 CA rollo, pp. 157-158.
31Id. at 158-159.
32Id.
33Rollo, pp. 59-63.
34Id. at 62. The dispositive portion reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryWHEREFORE, the respondent's Manifestation and Motion is hereby denied for lack of merit. Let the pre-trial of this case be set on July 16, 2008 at 1:30 PM. Respondent is hereby advised to observe the rules on the conduct of pre-trial conference.35Id. at 64-66.
SO ORDERED.
36Id. at 69-70.
37 CA rollo, pp. 2-22.
38Rollo, pp. 27-42. Penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, with Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Marlene Gonzales-Sison, concurring.
39Id. at 36.
40Id. at 38.
41Id. at 39.
42Id.
43Id.
44Rollo, p. 40.
45Id.
46Rollo, p. 43.
47Id. at 3-26.
48Id. at 17.
49Id. at 21.
50Id. at 23.
51Id. at 91-111.
52Id. at 101.
53Id. at 106.
54Id. at 107.
55Id.
56 Functions of the PRC. (http://www.prc.gov.ph/about/)
57 Promulgated on October 21, 2002. The powers of the Board of Nursing include:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySec. 9. Powers and Duties of the Board. - The Board shall supervise and regulate the practice of the nursing profession and shall have the following powers, duties and functions:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary58 In 2013, the PRC promulgated Resolution No. 2013-775, "Revised Rules and Regulations in Administrative Investigations" repealing Resolution No. 06-342 (A).
x x x (b) Issue, suspend or revoke certificates of registration for the practice of nursing; (c) Monitor and enforce quality standards of nursing practice in the Philippines and exercise the powers necessary to ensure the maintenance of efficient, ethical and technical, moral and professional standards in the practice of nursing taking into account the health needs of the nation; x x x (e) Conduct hearings and investigations to resolve complaints against nurse practitioners for unethical and unprofessional conduct and violations of this Act, or its rules and regulations and in connection therewith, issue subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum to secure the appearance of respondents and witnesses and the production of documents and punish with contempt persons obstructing, impeding and/or otherwise interfering with the conduct of such proceedings, upon application with the court; x x x
59Rollo, p. 19.
60Besaga v. Acosta, G.R. No. 194061, April 20, 2015, 746 SCRA 93, 105.
61Barcelona v. Lim, G.R. No. 189171, June 3, 2014, 724 SCRA 433, 451.
62Puse v. Delos Santos-Puse, G.R. No. 183678, March 15, 2010, 615 SCRA 500, 518.
63Jacob v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-20798, June 21, 1966, 17 SCRA 415, 417; Maloga v. Gella, G.R. No. L-20281, November 29, 1965, 15 SCRA 370, 372.
64 G.R. No. 132248, January 19, 2000, 322 SCRA 439.
65Id. at 449.
66Rollo, p. 106
67 Resolution dated May 6, 2008, rollo, pp. 59-63.
68Id. at 61-62.
69 G.R. No. 139794, February 27, 2002, 378 SCRA 143.
70Id. at 155.
71 Sec. 24. Hearing Officers. -
(1) Each agency shall have such number of qualified and competent members of the base as hearing officers as may be necessary for the hearing and adjudication of contested cases.
(2) No hearing officer shall engaged in the performance of prosecuting functions in any contested case or any factually related case.
72Cayao-Lasam v. Spouses Ramolete, G.R. No. 159132, December 18, 2008, 574 SCRA 439, 450-451.
73 RA No. 9173, Section 6 reads:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySec. 6. Term of Office. - The Chairperson and Members of the Board shall hold office for a term of three (3) years and until their successors shall have been appointed and qualified: Provided, That the Chairperson and members of the Board may be re-appointed for another term.x x x 74Vivo v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, G.R. No. 187854, November 12, 2013, 709 SCRA 276, 281.