SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 214435. February 14, 2022
PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. DAYAMON DIDATO ALO, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
HERNANDO, J.:
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the February 12, 2014 Decision2 and the September 12, 2014 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 129993.
The facts of the case are as follows:
On July 5, 2011, respondent Dayamon Didato Alo (Alo) was formally charged with unprofessional conduct and/or dishonorable conduct before the Board for Professional Teachers (Board), which operates under petitioner Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), for using fraud or deceit in obtaining a certificate of registration and professional license, allegedly committed as follows:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
You used a falsified Board Resolution No. 671 dated September 28, 2000 when you registered as a professional teacher on September 14, 2007. The original Board Resolution No. 671 dated September 28, 2000 does not contain your name as among those who will be registered as professional teachers without examination either in the elementary level or in the secondary level.4chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryFor her defense, Alo alleged in her counter-affidavit5 that she is a holder of a degree in Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education and had been a public elementary school teacher in Kalanganan Elementary School from 1995 to 2006 before she secured her certificate of registration and professional license.6 She is currently a public school teacher in Tambo Cadayonan Elementary School, Pantar District, Pantar, Lanao del Norte.7chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Board hereby declares the respondent, DAYAMON DIDATO ALO, GUILTY as charged and accordingly REVOKES her certificate of registration and license as professional teacher.Dissatisfied, Alo filed a motion for reconsideration24 which the Board denied.25chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Respondent is hereby ordered to surrender to this Board her Certificate of Registration and Professional Identification Card as Professional Teacher within fifteen (15) days upon finality of this decision and to desist from the practice of the teaching profession under the pain of criminal prosecution.
SO ORDERED.23chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for review is GRANTED and the September 11, 2012 Decision and March 15, 2013 Order of respondent Board for Professional Teachers are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner is EXONERATED of the charge against her.In ruling for Alo, the CA held that the evidence on record was utterly insufficient to sustain the Board's finding that Alo committed fraud or falsification in securing her certificate of registration and professional license.33 The special prosecutor in this case failed to present not only the alleged falsified Board Resolution No. 671 used by Alo, but also the authentic and original copy of the said board resolution itself.34 Toe said documents were never a part of, or attached to the record of the case.35 Given this, the CA gave credence to Alo's assertion that she never knew of the existence of the questioned board resolution, more so her assertion that she never falsified the same.36 Therefore, not only did the prosecutor fail to prove that there was falsification and that Alo was the one who committed it, the prosecutor also failed to present in evidence the corpus delicti of the alleged falsification.37chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SO ORDERED.32chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which a person possesses, or exercise acts of ownership over, are owned by him or her.The CA held that the Board's application of the foregoing presumption is fundamentally flawed because Alo was not accused of falsifying her license, but an alleged Board Resolution No. 671 submitted by Alo to secure her license.39 Given that the license was an authentic document, the prosecution failed to prove by substantial evidence, the falsification of the alleged Board Resolution No. 671, which, as discussed earlier, was not even presented as evidence.40chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Sec. 26. Registration and Exception. — Two (2) years after the effectivity of this Act, no person shall engage in teaching and/or act as a professional teacher as defined in this Act, whether in the preschool, elementary or secondary level, unless he is a duly registered professional teacher, and a holder of a valid certificate of registration and a valid professional license or a holder of a valid special/temporary permit.The Board argued that Alo's right to apply for a certificate of registration and professional license had already prescribed, pursuant to the last paragraph of the aforequoted provision and its own Board Resolution No. 600, Series of 1997 (BPT Resolution 600-1997), which provided that "those who fail to register by September 2000 shall forfeit their privilege to practice the teaching profession for abandonment of responsibility."42 According to the Board, since Alo only applied in September 2007, way beyond the prescriptive period, she already lost her entitlement under the law.43chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
x x x x
(c) Not qualified under paragraphs one and two but with any of the following qualifications, to wit:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary(1) An elementary or secondary teacher for five (5) years in good standing and a holder of Bachelor of Science in Education or its equivalent; orProvided, That they shall be given two (2) years from the organization of the Board for professional teachers within which to register and be included in the roster of professional teachers: Provided, further, That those incumbent teachers who are not qualified to register without examination under this Act or who, albeit qualified, were unable to register within the two-year period shall be issued a five-year temporary or special permit from the time the Board is organized within which to register after passing the examination and complying with the requirements provided this Act and be included in the roster of professional teachers: Provided, furthermore, That those who have failed the licensure examination for professional teachers shall be eligible as para-teachers and as such, shall be issued by the Board a special or temporary permit, and shall be assigned by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) to schools as it may determine under the circumstances.
(2) An elementary or secondary teacher for three (3) years in good standing and a holder of a master's degree in education or its equivalent.
WHEREFORE, finding no cogent reason to disturb Our assailed decision, the instant motion for reconsideration is DENIED.Hence, the instant petition, which essentially raises following -
SO ORDERED.48chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Issues
1) Whether or not the CA has jurisdiction to directly review the Board's decision, considering that the same belongs to the PRC; and
2) Whether or not the Board correctly found respondent guilty of falsification and accordingly revoked her certificate of registration and professional license.49chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The CA has jurisdiction of the case. |
Section 9. Powers, Functions and Responsibilities of the Various Professional Regulatory Boards - The various professional regulatory boards shall retain the following powers, functions and responsibilities:The PRC maintains that it implements the above provision through their own Resolution No. 2013-775.53 Section 1 thereof states:54chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
x 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;
Section 1. Appeal, Period Non-Extendible. - The decision or the order of the Board that completely disposes of the case shall be final and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof without an appeal being perfected or taken by either party. The aggrieved part may file a notice of appeal to the Commission together with appellant's brief or memorandum on appeal, copy furnished the adverse party, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the decision or order, and shall pay the appeal and legal research fees.This argument holds no water.
The period for perfecting an appeal shall be non-extendible. (Underscoring supplied)
Sec. 9. Jurisdiction. — The Court of Appeals shall exercise:Rule 43 of the Rules of Court is consistent with the aforequoted provision, particularly Section 9(3) of BP 129, which grants the CA exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of RTCs and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions. Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary(1) Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction;(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgment of Regional Trial Courts; and(3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Security Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.The Court of Appeals shall have the power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling within its original and appellate jurisdiction, including the power to grant and conduct new trials or further proceedings. Trials or hearings in the Court of Appeals must be continuous and must be completed within three (3) months, unless extended by the Chief Justice. (Underscoring supplied)
It is clear from the above provisions that a Rule 43 petition to the CA includes all awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions, except those under the Labor Code of the Philippines. Pertinently, this Court has ruled that the list of quasi-judicial entities found in Section 1, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court is not exclusive. The case of United Coconut Planters Bank v. E. Ganzon, Inc.60 explains:RULE 43 Appeals From the Court of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the Court of Appeals
Section 1. Scope. — This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. 6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission, Agricultural Invention Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law.
Section 2. Cases not covered. — This Rule shall not apply to judgments or final orders issued under the Labor Code of the Philippines.
x x x x (Underscoring supplied)
Section 1, Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure merely mentions several quasi-judicial agencies without exclusivity in the phraseology. The enumeration of the agencies therein mentioned is not exclusive. The introductory phrase "[a]mong these agencies are" preceding the enumeration of specific quasi judicial agencies only highlights the fact that the list is not meant to be exclusive or conclusive. Further, the overture stresses and acknowledges the existence of other quasi-judicial agencies not included in the enumeration but should be deemed included.61 (Underscoring supplied)With this in mind, the question now is whether the Board is considered a quasi-judicial agency that exercised quasi-judicial powers when it issued its Decision dated September 11, 2012. Jurisprudence provides a guide on what may be considered as a quasi-judicial entity and what it means to exercise quasi-judicial functions, to wit:
A quasi-judicial agency or body is an organ of government other than a court and other than a legislature, which affects the rights of private parties through either adjudication or rule-making. The very definition of an administrative agency includes its being vested with quasi-judicial powers. The ever increasing variety of powers and functions given to administrative agencies recognizes the need for the active intervention of administrative agencies in matters calling for technical knowledge and speed in countless controversies which cannot possibly be handled by regular courts. A "quasi-judicial function" is a term which applies to the action, discretion, etc. of public administrative officers or bodies, who are required to investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature.62 (Underscoring supplied)As applied in this case, the Board is clearly vested with quasi-judicial power. Section 9(c) of RA 8981 provides:
Section 9. Powers, Functions and Responsibilities of the Various Professional Regulatory Boards – The various, professional regulatory boards shall retain the following powers, functions and responsibilities:The Board, by virtue of the power vested in it by the provision above, clearly exercised its quasi-judicial functions when it investigated the case, held a hearing, and issued a decision that affected the rights of a private party, herein respondent Alo.
x 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; (Underscoring supplied)
While the CA has jurisdiction, Alo failed to exhaust all administrative remedies, and thus, under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, her case must be dismissed for lack of cause of action. |
The general rule is that before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail of all the means afforded him by administrative processes. The issues which administrative agencies are authorized to decide should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to a court without first giving such administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due deliberation.Of course, this general rule allows for some exceptions, which have been repeatedly outlined by this Court. The case of The Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. v. The Heirs of Mariano Marcos,67 citing previous jurisprudence, provides:
Corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; that is, courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.
However, this principle is not inflexible, and admits of several exceptions that include situations where the very rationale of the doctrine has been defeated. The Court has taken many occasions to outline these exceptions, including its observation in Samar II Electric Cooperative, Inc., et al. v. Seludo, Jr., to wit:However, the records would show that none of these exceptions are present in this case. Alo filed the petition for review with the CA on May 2, 2013 without any justification or reason on why she did not file an appeal with the PRC instead, considering that the latter is the proper procedure and it was still within the 15-day reglementary period. Not only is this a blatant disregard of procedural rules, but also a denial of an opportunity for the PRC to review the Board's decision and if necessary, correct or modify the same, without resorting to the judiciary and unnecessarily adding to the courts' already clogged dockets. This is definitely contrary to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies, and thus, the CA should have dismissed the petition for lack of cause of action.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryTrue, the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies are subject to certain exceptions, to wit: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the amount involved is relatively so small as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice; (f) where judicial intervention is urgent; (g) where the application of the doctrine may cause great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due process; (i) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot; (j) where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) where strong public interest is involved; and (l) in quo warranto proceedings.
Alo was never qualified under the law to obtain a professional teaching license and certificate of registration. Moreover, she applied for registration way beyond the prescriptive period under the law. |
Sec. 26. Registration and Exception. — Two (2) years after the effectivity of this Act, no person shall engage in teaching and/or act as a professional teacher as defined in this Act, whether in the preschool, elementary or secondary level, unless he is a duly registered professional teacher, and a holder of a valid certificate of registration and a valid professional license or a holder of a valid special/temporary permit.In implementing the above provision, the Board then issued BPT Resolution 600-1997, which provides that qualified applicants under Section 26 (C) of RA 7836 must be incumbent teachers, full-time or part-time, in public and private schools at the pre-school, elementary and secondary levels as of December 16, 1994 and have at least five years of experience.68chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Upon approval of the application and payment of the prescribed fees, the certificate of registration and professional license as a professional teacher shall be issued without examination as required in this Act to a qualified applicant, who at the time of the approval of this Act, is:
(a) A holder of a certificate of eligibility as a teacher issued by the Civil Service Commission and the Department of Education, Culture and Sports;cralawlawlibrary
(b) A registered professional teacher with the National Board for Teachers under the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1006; or
(c) Not qualified under paragraphs one and two but with any of the following qualifications, to wit:(1) An elementary or secondary teacher for five (5) years in good standing and a holder of Bachelor of Science in Education or its equivalent; orProvided, That they shall be given two (2) years from the organization of the Board for professional teachers within which to register and be included in the roster of professional teachers: Provided, further, That those incumbent teachers who are not qualified to register without examination under this Act or who, albeit qualified, were unable to register within the two-year period shall be issued a five-year temporary or special permit from the time the Board is organized within which to register after passing the examination and complying with the requirements provided this Act and be included in the roster of professional teachers: Provided, furthermore, That those who have failed the licensure examination for professional teachers shall be eligible as para-teachers and as such, shall be issued by the Board a special or temporary permit, and shall be assigned by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) to schools as it may determine under the circumstances. (Underscoring supplied)
(2) An elementary or secondary teacher for three (3) years in good standing and a holder of a master's degree in education or its equivalent.
Pursuant to RA 7836, the PRC formulated certain rules and regulations relative to the registration of teachers and their continued practice of the teaching profession. Specific periods and deadlines were fixed within which incumbent teachers must register as professional teachers in consonance with the essential purpose of the law in promoting good quality education by ensuring that those who practice the teaching profession are duly licensed and are registered as professional teachers.Given the above, even if we consider only for the sake of argument that Alo is a qualified applicant, then she must be deemed to have forfeited her privilege to practice the teaching profession for failure to register by September 19, 2000. She admitted to have only applied for registration in September 2007,76 seven years from the deadline provided under BPT Resolution 600-1997. Clearly, she cannot anymore register as an applicant under Section 26 of RA 7836, and thus, if she wants to register as a professional teacher, she can only do so by taking and passing the licensure examination, which she did not.
Under DECS Memorandum No. 10, S. 1998, the Board for Professional Teachers (BPT), created under the general supervision and administrative control of the PRC, was organized on September 20, 1995 so that, in the implementation of Sections 26, 27 and 31 of RA 7836, incumbent teachers as of December 16, 1994 have until September 19, 1997 to register as professional teachers. The Memorandum further stated that a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was subsequently entered into by the PRC, Civil Service Commission (CSC) and DECS to further allow those teachers who failed to register by September 19, 1997 to continue their service and register. BPT Resolution No. 600, s. 1997 was thereafter passed to provide the guidelines to govern teacher registration beyond September 19, 1997. Consequently, the deadline was moved to September 19, 2000.
Pursuant to the aforestated law, resolution and memorandum, effective September 20, 2000, only holders of valid certificates of registration, valid professional licenses and valid special/temporary permits can engage in teaching in both public and private schools. Clearly, respondents, in the case at bar, had until September 19, 2000 to comply with the mandatory requirement to register as professional teachers. As respondents are categorized as those not qualified to register without examination, the law requires them to register by taking and passing the licensure examination.75 (Underscoring supplied)
Alo's right to due process was not violated when the Board declared that she was not qualified for registration under Section 26 of RA 7836. |
(1) | The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one's case and submit evidence in support thereof; |
(2) | The tribunal must consider the evidence presented; |
(3) | The decision must have something to support itself; |
(4) | The evidence must be substantial; |
(5) | The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected; |
(6) | The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision; and |
(7) | The board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.79chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary |
The CA erred in reversing and setting aside the Board's decision. |
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 16-36.
2 Id. at 40-47. Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of this Court) and Pedro Corales.
3 Id. at 48-50.
4 Id. at 40-41.
5 CA rollo, pp. 32-34.
6 Rollo, p. 41.
7 Id. at 18.
8 Entitled "AN ACT TO STRENGTHEN THE REGULATION AND SUPERVISION OF THE PRACTICE OF TEACHING IN THE PHILIPPINES AND PRESCRIBING A LICENSURE EXAMINATION FOR TEACHERS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved December 16, 1994.
9 Id. at 41.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Entitled "THE MAGNA CARTA FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS." Approved: June 18, 1966.
17 Rollo, pp. 41-42.
18 CA rollo, pp. 35-39.
19 Rollo, p. 42.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id. at 69-74.
23 Id. at 74.
24 Id. at 75-78.
25 Id. at 75.
26 CA rollo, pp. 7-18.
27 Rollo, p. 19.
28 CA rollo, p. 47.
29 Rollo, p. 43.
30 Id.
31 Id. at 40-47.
32 Id. at 47.
33 Id. at 43-44.
34 Id. at 44.
35 Id.
36 Id.
37 Id.
38 Id.
39 Id. at 44-45.
40 Id. at 45.
41 Id. at 46.
42 Id.
43 Id.
44 Id.
45 Id.
46 Id.
47 Id. at 48.
48 Id. at 50.
49 Id. at 21.
50 Id. at 22.
51 Entitled "AN ACT MODERNIZING THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION, REPEALING FOR THE PURPOSE PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NUMBERED TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY-THREE, ENTITLED 'CREATING THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION AND PRESCRIBING ITS POWERS AND FUNCTIONS,' AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved December 5, 2000.
52 Rollo, p. 22.
53 Id.
54 Id.
55 Foronda-Crystal v. Son, 821 Phil. 1033 (2017).
56 Id.
57 El Dorado Consulting Realty and Development Group Corp. v. Pacific Union Insurance Company, G.R. Nos. 245617 & 245836, November 10, 2020.
58 Entitled "AN ACT REORGANIZING THE JUDICIARY, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved: August 14, 1981.
59 Entitled "AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION NINE OF BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129, As AMENDED, KNOWN AS THE JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980." Approved: February 23, 1995.
60 609 Phil. 104 (2009).
61 Id. at 121-122.
62 Id. at 122.
63 CA rollo, p. 23.
64 Id.
65 The Roman Catholic Bishop of Malolos, Inc. v. The Heirs of Mariano Marcos, G.R. No. 225971, June 17, 2020.
66 546 Phil. 87, 96-97 (2007).
67 Supra.
68 Rollo, p. 105.
69 Id. at 248.
70 Id. at 253.
71 Id. at 106
72 Id.
73 Id.
74 644 Phil. 532 (2010).
75 Id. at 545-547.
76 Rollo, p. 254.
77 Id. at 253-255.
78 69 Phil. 635 (1940).
79 Id. at 642-644.
80 Rollo, p. 30.
81 Id.
82 Id. at 221-224.
83 Id.
84 Id. at 301 and 303-304.
85 Id. at 254.cralawredlibrary