Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > April 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5750 April 20, 1953 - RODRIGO COLOSO v. BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY

092 Phil 938:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5750. April 20, 1953.]

RODRIGO COLOSO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY, Respondent-Appellee.

M. V. Quintana for Appellant.

Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag and Solicitor Pacifico P. de Castro for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. MANDAMUS; BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY CAN NOT BE COMPELLED TO GIVE A CANDIDATE A SPECIAL EXAMINATION. — By express terms the application of the last clause of paragraph VII of the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Accountancy is left to the sound discretion of the Board. Where there is no showing that this discretion was abused, the Board cannot be compelled by mandamus to permit a candidate to take a reexamination on subjects in which he had previously failed. It is a well-recognized principle that purely administrative and discretionary functions may not be interferred with by the courts.

2. ID.; BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY; SPECIAL EXAMINATION MAY BE GIVEN BY BOARD IF APPLICATION IS FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR. — The Board has no authority whatsoever to give any special examination, as provided in paragraph VII of the Rules and Regulations, supra, unless an application therefor has been made within the period of one year.


D E C I S I O N


TUASON, J.:


This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, dismissing the plaintiff’s, now appellant’s, petition in which he prayed for a writ to compel the Board of Accountancy "to register and issue (to him) a certificate as Certified Public Accountant . . . in accordance with Act 3105 as amended."cralaw virtua1aw library

The case was submitted on a stipulation of facts. From the agreed statement, it appears that the petitioner took the examination for certified public accountant in June 1941, and obtained the following ratings:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Practical Accounting 75%

Commercial Law 75%

Auditing 70%

Theory of Accounts 50%;

that upon, or soon after, the outbreak of the late war, the petitioner evacuated to his province, Negros Occidental where he stayed continuously until the early part of November, 1945; that in that month he asked to be allowed by the Board of Accountancy to take the examination in Auditing and Theory of Accounts only, in accordance with the Board’s rules and regulations allowing a candidate who has received a grade of 75 percent or more in two or more subjects to be exempt from such subjects in a subsequent examination, but that his request was disallowed on the ground that it had not been made within one year; that certified public accountant examinations were given in December, 1941, July and December, 1942, June and December, 1943, June 1944, December, 1945, and June and December, 1946; that while notices of the times and places of the holding of these examinations did not reach the petitioner, they were published in the Manila newspapers; that by reason of the Board of Accountancy’s refusal to grant the petitioner’s request, he took the examination in all the four subjects in December, 1946, but made it understood that he was not waiving his right "to claim the privilege of removal of the subjects he previously failed in case he passed them in said examination" ; that in the last- mentioned examination he obtained 88.5 per cent in Theory of Accounts, 75 per cent in Commercial Law; and 76.5 per cent in Auditing, but got only 48 per cent in Practical Accounting, a subject in which he was successful in the previous examination.

Paragraph VII of the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Accountancy provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"To pass the examination, a candidate must have made 75 points in each subject. In the event of a candidate receiving a grade of 75 points or more, in two or more subjects he may make application within one year in the usual manner for examination, and the Board at its option, may permit his reexamination to be confined to those subjects in which he had previously failed."cralaw virtua1aw library

By express terms the application of the last clause of this rule is left to the sound discretion of the Board. There is no showing that this discretion has been abused. If for no other reason that that the privilege invoked is, at the most, discretionary, the Board cannot be compelled by mandamus to grant the petitioner’s demand. It is a well- recognized principle that purely administrative and discretionary functions may not be interferred with by the courts. (Lambs v. Thipps, 22 Phil., 256; Gonzales v. Board of Pharmacy, 20 Phil., 367, Blanco v. Board of Medical Examiners, 46 Phil., 190; Ortua v. Encarnacion, 59 Phil., 440.)

But the plaintiff’s case does not even rest on the Board’s discretion. The Board has, in our opinion, no authority whatever to give any special examination as provided in Paragraph VII of the Rules and Regulations, supra, unless an application therefor has been made within the period of one year.

The case of one Exequiel S. Reyes, who was permitted by the Secretary of Finance to take a re-examination after the war, only on the subjects in which he had fallen short of the passing mark before the war, can scarcely be invoked as a guide for the Board to follow. For the powers of the Department Head are wider than the Board’s, and the Secretary’s action in favor of Reyes was not a green-light signal for the Board to act similarly in all similar cases. Granting, without deciding, that the Department Secretary can lawfully act beyond, or make exceptions to, the rules, the Board, without the Secretary’s authority, cannot. True, the Board of Accountancy makes the rules for the examination of candidates but they are subject to the approval of the Secretary of Finance. (Section 4(a) of Act No. 3105.)

Incidentally, Reyes’ case is an expressive confirmation of the respondents’ other contention, that the petitioner has a plain, speedy and adequate remedy other than a resort to the courts of justice. What the petitioner could or should have done was to appeal to the Secretary of Finance as Reyes had done.

The decision of the lower court will be affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-4215-16 April 17, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO DOSAL

    092 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. L-5198 April 17, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANGLIMA MAHLON, ET AL.

    092 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. L-5539 April 17, 1953 - RUPERTA BOOL v. PERPETUO MENDOZA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 892

  • G.R. No. L-5587 April 17, 1953 - FELIXBERTO MEDEL, ET AL. v. HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO ETC., ET AL.

    092 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. L-5686 April 17, 1953 - ANTONIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. HON. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 899

  • G.R. No. L-5770 April 17, 1953 - BRICCIO MADRID, ET AL. v. HON. ANATOLIO C. MAÑALAC, ET AL.

    092 Phil 902

  • G.R. No. L-5790 April 17, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO DE LA CRUZ

    092 Phil 906

  • G.R. No. L-6103 April 17, 1953 - FORTUNATO MARQUIALA, ET AL. v. HON. FILOMENO YBAÑEZ, ET AL.

    092 Phil 911

  • G.R. No. L-4353 April 20, 1953 - TAN KAY KO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 915

  • G.R. No. L-4476 April 20, 1953 - SAMUEL J. WILSON v. B. H. BERKENKOTTER

    092 Phil 918

  • G.R. No. L-4647 April 20, 1953 - FLOR VILLASOR v. AGAPITO VILLASOR

    092 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. L-5065 April 20, 1953 - ESTEFANIA PISALBON, ET AL. v. HONORATO TESORO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-5242 April 20, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO B. IBAÑEZ, ET AL.

    092 Phil 933

  • G.R. No. L-5750 April 20, 1953 - RODRIGO COLOSO v. BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY

    092 Phil 938

  • G.R. No. L-4940 April 22, 1953 - MADRIGAL & CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    092 Phil 941

  • G.R. No. L-5163 April 22, 1953 - P. J. KIENER CO., LTD. v. SATURNINO DAVID

    092 Phil 945

  • G.R. No. L-5888 April 22, 1953 - ANTONIO T. CARRASCOSO v. JOSE FUENTEBELLA

    092 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. L-4831 April 24, 1953 - NATIVIDAD SIDECO, ET AL. v. ANGELA AZNAR, ET AL.

    092 Phil 952

  • G.R. No. L-5515 April 24, 1953 - FELIPA FERIA, ET AL. v. GERONIMO T. SUVA

    092 Phil 963

  • G.R. No. L-4814 April 27, 1953 - LEA AROJO DE DUMELOD, ET AL. v. BUENAVENTURA VILARAY

    092 Phil 967

  • G.R. No. L-5157 April 27, 1953 - VISAYAN ELECTRIC CO. v. SATURNINO DAVID

    092 Phil 969

  • G.R. No. L-5675 April 27, 1953 - ANTONIO CARBALLO v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

    092 Phil 974

  • G.R. No. L-5876 April 27, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHU CHI

    092 Phil 977

  • G.R. No. L-4144 April 29, 1953 - GEORGE S. CORBET v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 980

  • G.R. No. L-4790 April 29, 1953 - ISIDORO FOJAS, ET AL. v. SEGUNDO AGUSTIN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 983

  • G.R. No. L-4802 April 29, 1953 - IN RE: . KIAT CHUN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 987

  • G.R. No. L-4948 April 29, 1953 - JUDGE OF THE CFI OF BAGUIO v. JOSE VALLES

    092 Phil 989

  • G.R. No. L-5062 April 29, 1953 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. MANILA TRADING LABOR ASS’N.

    092 Phil 997

  • G.R. No. L-5099 April 29, 1953 - BEATRIZ CABAHUG-MENDOZA v. VICENTE VARELA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1001

  • G.R. No. L-5104 April 29, 1953 - IN RE: OSCAR ANGLO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    092 Phil 1006

  • G.R. Nos. L-5190-93 April 29, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO BAYSA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1008

  • G.R. No. L-5206 April 29, 1953 - CALTEX (PHIL.) v. PHIL. LABOR ORG., ET AL.

    092 Phil 1014

  • G.R. No. L-5394 April 29, 1953 - BERNARDO TORRES v. MAMERTO S. RIBO

    092 Phil 1019

  • G.R. No. L-5470 April 29, 1953 - WOODCRAFT WORKS, LTD. v. SEGUNDO C. MOSCOSO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1021

  • G.R. No. L-5558 April 29, 1953 - ENRIQUE D. MANABAT, ET AL. v. HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1025

  • G.R. No. L-5788 April 29, 1953 - CHUA BUN POK, ET AL. v. JUZGADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA DE MANILA, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1029

  • G.R. No. L-5826 April 29, 1953 - VICENTE CAGRO, ET AL. v. PELAGIO CAGRO, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1032

  • G.R. No. L-5948 April 29, 1953 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1036

  • G.R. No. L-5969 April 29, 1953 - ALFREDO P. DALAO v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO

    092 Phil 1042

  • G.R. No. L-5989 April 29, 1953 - APOLINARIO DUQUE, ET AL. v. L. PASICOLAN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1044

  • G.R. No. L-6079 April 29, 1953 - SOFRONIO GAMMAD, ET AL. v. MANUEL ARRANZ, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1048

  • G.R. No. L-6177 April 29, 1953 - GABINO LOZADA, ET AL v. HON. FERNANDO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1051

  • G.R. No. L-4896 April 30, 1953 - APOLINARIO CRUZ v. PATROCINIO KELLY

    092 Phil 1054

  • G.R. No. L-5452 April 30, 1953 - FLORENTINO KIAMKO, ET AL. v. CIRILO C. MACEREN, ET AL.

    092 Phil 1057