ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
November-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 137968 November 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRE DELOS SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 123138-39 November 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. HONESTO LLANDELAR

  • A.M. MTJ-01-1375 November 13, 2001 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT IN THE MTCs of CALASIAO. BINMALEY

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601 November 13, 2001 - ELIEZER A. SIBAYAN-JOAQUIN v. ROBERTO S. JAVELLANA

  • G.R. No. 104629 November 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIUS KINOK

  • G.R. No. 134498 November 13, 2001 - CELIA M. MERIZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL

  • G.R. Nos. 135454-56 November 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. RODERICK SANTOS

  • A.M. No. CA-01-10-P November 14, 2001 - ALDA C. FLORIA v. CURIE F. SUNGA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1518 November 14, 2001 - ANTONIO A. ARROYO v. SANCHO L. ALCANTARA

  • G.R. No. 122736 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FROILAN PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 123819 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. STEPHEN MARK WHISENHUNT

  • G.R. No. 133877 November 14, 2001 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. ALFA RTW MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 133910 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE VIRREY y DEHITO

  • G.R. No. 135511-13 November 14, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ENTICO MARIANO y EXCONDE

  • G.R. No. 137613 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALITO CABOQUIN

  • G.R. No. 138914 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN MANTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142870 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DINDO F. PAJOTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 143513 & 143590 November 14, 2001 - POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS and FIRESTONE CERAMICS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1599 November 15, 2001 - TRANQUILINO F. MERIS v. JUDGE FLORENTINO M. ALUMBRES

  • G.R. No. 123213 November 15, 2001 - NEPOMUCENA BRUTAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126584 November 15, 2001 - VALLEY LAND RESOURCES, INC., ET AL. v. VALLEY GOLF CLUB INC.

  • G.R. No. 127897 November 15, 2001 - DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129018 November 15, 2001 - CARMELITA LEAÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136017 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY BANTILING

  • G.R. No. 136143 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AGAPITO CABOTE a.k.a. "PITO"

  • G.R. No. 137255 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL MAMALAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137369 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALIAS KOBEN VISTA

  • G.R. No. 141811 November 15, 2001 - FIRST METRO INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. ESTE DEL SOL MOUNTAIN RESERVE

  • G.R. No. 145275 November 15, 2001 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LA CAMPANA FABRICA DE TABACOS

  • G.R. No. 148326 November 15, 2001 - PABLO C. VILLABER Petitioner v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and REP. DOUGLAS R. CAGAS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1382 November 16, 2001 - MARIO W. CHILAGAN v. EMELINA L. CATTILING

  • A.M. No. P-00-1411 November 16, 2001 - FELICIDAD JACOB v. JUDITH T. TAMBO

  • G.R. No. 120274 November 16, 2001 - SPOUSES FRANCISCO A. PADILLA and GERALDINE S. PADILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES CLAUDIO AÑONUEVO and CARMELITA AÑONUEVO

  • G.R. No. 127003 November 16, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. FAUSTINO GABON

  • G.R. Nos. 132875-76 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO G. JALOSJOS

  • G.R. No. 132916 November 16, 2001 - RUFINA TANCINCO v. GSIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133437 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RONALD SAMSON

  • G.R. No. 134486 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE DAYNA

  • G.R. No. 135038 November 16, 2001 - ROLANDO Y. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142654 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ROLANDO MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 143802 November 16, 2001 - REYNOLAN T. SALES v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129175 November 19, 2001 - RUBEN N. BARRAMEDA, ET AL. v. ROMEO ATIENZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130945 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO CONDINO

  • G.R. No. 132724 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENIEL SANAHON

  • G.R. Nos. 138358-59 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDIO B. DELA PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 138661 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERSON E. ACOJEDO

  • G.R. No. 140920 November 19, 2001 - JUAN LORENZO B. BORDALLO, ET AL. v. THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF MARINE DECK OFFICERS

  • G.R. No. 148560 November 19, 2001 - JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 91486 November 20, 2001 - ALBERTO G. PINLAC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122276 November 20, 2001 - RODRIGO ALMUETE ET AL., v. MARCELO ANDRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126204 November 20, 2001 - NAPOCOR v. PHILIPP BROTHERS OCEANIC

  • G.R. Nos. 126538-39 November 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODELIO MARCELO

  • G.R. No. 129234 November 20, 2001 - THERMPHIL v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140032 November 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANGEL C. BALDOZ and MARY GRACE NEBRE

  • G.R. No. 140692 November 20, 2001 - ROGELIO C. DAYAN v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144401 November 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL GALISIM

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1207 November 21, 2001 - NBI v. FRANCISCO D. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. P- 01-1520 November 21, 2001 - MARILOU A. CABANATAN v. CRISOSTOMO T. MOLINA

  • A.M. Nos. RTJ-00-1561 & RTJ-01-1659 November 21, 2001 - CARINA AGARAO v. Judge JOSE J. PARENTELA

  • G.R. No. 125356 November 21, 2001 - SUPREME TRANSLINER INC. v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132839 November 21, 2001 - ERIC C. ONG v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 133879 November 21, 2001 - EQUATORIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT v. MAYFAIR THEATER

  • G.R. No. 136748 November 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137457 November 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSAURO SIA

  • G.R. No. 141881 November 21, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VIRGILIO BERNABE y RAFOL

  • A.M. No RTJ-01-1664 November 22, 2001 - ALFREDO CAÑADA v. VICTORINO MONTECILLO

  • G.R. No. 109648 November 22, 2001 - PH CREDIT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS and CARLOS M. FARRALES

  • G.R. Nos. 111502-04 November 22, 2001 - REYNALDO H. JAYLO, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 113218 November 22, 2001 - ALEJANDRO TECSON v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113541 November 22, 2001 - HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP. EMPLOYEES UNION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118462 November 22, 2001 - LEOPOLDO GARRIDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123893 November 22, 2001 - LUISITO PADILLA , ET AL. v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129660 November 22, 2001 - BIENVENIDO P. JABAN and LYDIA B. JABAN v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130628 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO LEONAR

  • G.R. No. 132743 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIAL CAÑARES Y ORBES

  • G.R. No. 133861 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO SO

  • G.R. Nos. 135853-54 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OPENIANO LACISTE

  • G.R. No. 135863 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VlRGILIO LORICA

  • G.R. Nos. 136317-18 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO YAOTO

  • G.R. No. 136586 November 22, 2001 - JON AND MARISSA DE YSASI v. ARTURO AND ESTELA ARCEO

  • G.R. No. 139563 November 22, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.. v. AMADOR BISMONTE y BERINGUELA

  • G.R. Nos. 139959-60 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEOGRACIAS BURGOS

  • G.R. No. 141602 November 22, 2001 - PACSPORTS PHILS. v. NICCOLO SPORTS, INC.

  • G.R. No. 142316 November 22, 2001 - FRANCISCO A.G. DE LIANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143939 November 22, 2001 - HEIRS OF ROSARIO POSADAS REALTY v. ROSENDO.BANTUG

  • G.R. No. 145475 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EUSEBIO PUNSALAN

  • G.R. No. 145851 November 22, 2001 - ABELARDO B. LICAROS v. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146683 November 22, 2001 - CIRILA ARCABA v. ERLINDA TABANCURA VDA. DE BATOCAEL, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1562 November 23, 2001 - CAVITE CRUSADE FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT v. JUDGE NOVATO CAJIGAL

  • G.R. No. 126334 November 23, 2001 - EMILIO EMNACE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128886 November 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS JULIANDA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142044 November 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOBECHUKWU NICHOLAS

  • G.R. No. 144309 November 23, 2001 - SOLID TRIANGLE SALES CORPORATION and ROBERT SITCHON v. THE SHERIFF OF RTC QC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1662 November 26, 2001 - VICTOR TUZON v. LORETO CLORIBEL-PURUGGANAN

  • G.R. No. 138303 November 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELROSWELL MANZANO

  • G.R. Nos. 100940-41 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AGUSTIN LADAO y LORETO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128285 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ANTONIO PLANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 130409-10 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSUE B. DUMLAO

  • G.R. No. 130907 November 27, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. HON. CESAR A MANGROBANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130963 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 133381 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO VILLAVER, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 140858 November 27, 2001 - SPOUSES PAPA and LOLITA MANALILI v. SPOUSES ARSENIO and GLICERIA DE LEON

  • G.R. No. 142523 November 27, 2001 - MARIANO L. GUMABON, ET AL. v. AQUILINO T. LARIN

  • G.R. No. 144464 November 27, 2001 - GILDA G. CRUZ and ZENAIDA C. PAITIM v. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC November 28, 2001 - RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 128516 November 28, 2001 - DULOS REALTY and DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1485 November 29, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MARIE YVETTE GO, ET AL

  • A.M. No. P-01-1522 November 29, 2001 - JUDGE ANTONIO J. FINEZA v. ROMEO P. ARUELO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1665 November 29, 2001 - ROSAURO M. MIRANDA v. JUDGE CESAR A MANGROBANG

  • G.R. No. 119707 November 29, 2001 - VERONICA PADILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 121703 November 29, 2001 - NATIVIDAD T. TANGALIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126524 November 29, 2001 - BPI INVESTMENT CORP. v. D.G. CARREON COMMERCIAL CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129282 November 29, 2001 - DMPI EMPLOYEES CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 129609 & 135537 November 29, 2001 - RODIL ENTERPRISES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 130326 & 137868 November 29, 2001 - COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS AND MANILA TOBACCO TRADING v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 132066-67 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALAS MEDIOS

  • G.R. No. 132133 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WILLIAM ALPE y CUATRO

  • G.R. No. 136848 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO T. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 137815 November 29, 2001 - JUANITA T. SERING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138489 November 29, 2001 - ELEANOR DELA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 139470 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SPO2 ANTONIO B. BENOZA

  • G.R. No. 140386 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENNY ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 141386 November 29, 2001 - COMMISSION ON AUDIT OF THE PROVINCE OF CEBU v. PROVINCE OF CEBU

  • G.R. Nos. 141702-03 November 29, 2001 - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v. NLRC and MARTHA Z. SINGSON

  • G.R. No. 142606 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NESTOR MUNTA

  • G.R. No. 143127 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL RUBARES Y CAROLINO

  • G.R. No. 143703 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JOSE V. MUSA

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 140920   November 19, 2001 - JUAN LORENZO B. BORDALLO, ET AL. v. THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF MARINE DECK OFFICERS

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 140920. November 19, 2001.]

    JUAN LORENZO B. BORDALLO, RESTITUTO G. DE CASTRO and NOEL G. OLARTE, Petitioners, v. THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF MARINE DECK OFFICERS, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N


    KAPUNAN, J.:


    On February 24, 1998, President Fidel V. Ramos approved Republic Act No. 8544, entitled "An Act Regulating the Practice of the Merchant Marine Profession in the Philippines," otherwise known as the "Philippine Merchant Marine Officers Act of 1998." The law took effect on March 25, 1998, after fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Malaya. 1

    Section 2 of R.A. No. 8544 declares it the policy of the State to "institutionalize radical changes as required by international and national standards to insure that only qualified, competent and globally competitive Marine Deck/Engineer Officers as determined through licensure examinations shall be allowed entry to the practice of the Merchant Marine profession." The law provides for, and governs, among others, "the examination, registration and issuance of Certificate of Competency to Merchant Marine Officers." 2 Article V (Examination, Registration and Certificate of Competency) of the law contains provisions requiring examinations (Section 13), prescribing qualifications of applicants for examination (Section 14) and defining the scope of the examination (Section 15). In addition, Section 17 lays down the requirements for an examinee to be qualified as having passed the examination:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Rating in the Board Examinations. — To be qualified as having passed the board examination for Marine Deck/Engineer Officer, a candidate must obtain a weighted general average of seventy percent (70%), with no grade lower than sixty percent (60%) in any given subject. An examinee who obtains a weighted general average rating of seventy (70%) but obtains a rating below sixty percent (60%) in any given subject must take the examination in the subject or subjects where he obtained a grade below sixty percent (60%).

    Significantly, the passing rating prescribed by the above provision (70%) is lower than that prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 97 (Regulating the Practice of the Marine Professions in the Philippines), otherwise known as the Philippine Merchant Marine Officers Law. Section 9 thereof sets a passing rating of seventy-five percent (75%) thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Examination rating. — An examinee having obtained a general weighted average of seventy-five per cent or above with no rating below 60% in any subject; Provided, however, any examinee failing to get the general weighted average of seventy-five per cent shall be required to take a re-examination in all the subjects prescribed by the Board.

    R.A. No. 8544 also provides for the creation of the Board of Marine Desk Officers. Among the Board’s powers and duties, as set forth in Section 10, are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    (k) In accordance with the STCW ‘78 Convention and its amendments, to prepare, adopt and issue the syllabi of the subjects for examinations by determining and preparing the questions which shall strictly be within the scope of the syllabus of the subjects for examination;

    (l) To promulgate, administer and enforce rules and regulations necessary for carrying out the provisions of this Act, in accordance with the charter of the Professional Regulation Commission and the STCW ‘78 Convention, as amended: Provided, That in case of subsequent or future amendments to any international convention(s)/conference of which the Philippines is a signatory, the Board is empowered to amend/revise its rules and regulations to conform with the amendments of said convention(s) without the need of amending this enabling Act;

    x       x       x


    The Board is also empowered to adopt and promulgate the law’s Implementing Rules and Regulations:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SECTION 34. Implementing Rules and Regulations. — Subject to the approval of the commission, the Board shall adopt and promulgate such rules and regulations, including the Code of Ethics for Marine Deck/Engineer Officers, to carry out the provisions of this Act, which shall be effective after thirty (30) days following their publication in the Official Gazette or in a major daily newspaper of general circulation.

    On April 25, 26 and 27, 1998, respondent Board of Marine Deck Officers conducted the examination for deck officers. Petitioner Juan Lorenzo Bordallo took the examination for Chief Mate, petitioner Restituto de Castro for Second Mate, and petitioner Noel Olarte for Third Mate. At that time, the Board had not yet issued the syllabi and the rules and regulations pursuant to Republic Act No. 8455.

    Subsequently, petitioners received notices from respondent Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC) that they failed in their respective examinations. Petitioners secured certifications from the PRC their respective ratings. None of the petitioners obtained a general weighted average of 75%, although all of them had general weighted averages of more than 70%. None of them had a rating of less than 60% in any of the subjects.

    On May 21, 1998, petitioners filed a petition before the Board of Marine Deck Officers claiming that, in accordance with Section 17 of R.A. No. 8544, they should be considered as having passed the April 1998 Examination for Deck Officers.

    In the meantime, the PRC issued in relation to the July 1998 examinations PRC Resolution No. 569, Series of 1998, stating:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Considering that the "syllabi of the subjects for examination" have not as yet been prepared, adopted and issued pursuant to Section 10(k) in relation to Section 16 of R.A. No. 8544, the Boards for Marine Deck and Engine Officers shall issue programs of examinations which shall contain the subjects for examination and considering, further, that the weights of the subjects for examination remain the same, the grading system adopted by the Boards under P.D. No. 97 shall continue to be used in the said examinations.

    The Board, on June 9, 1998, promulgated Board Resolution No. 1, Series of 1998 (the Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 8544). 3

    On January 22, 1999, the Board of Marine Deck Officers issued an Order denying the petition, ratiocinating:chanrobles virtual law library

    The Board is guided by a directive issued by the Professional Regulation Commission under PRC Resolution No. 569, Series of 1998, . . .

    x       x       x


    While, admittedly, the above-quoted Resolution was issued for the licensure examinations given in July 1998, subsequent to the licensure examination taken by petitioners, it undoubtedly applies to the previous examination given in April 1998.

    Republic Act No. 8455 may have been given effect, under its own provisions, "after fifteen [15] days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in any major newspaper of general circulation, whichever comes earlier." However, the same law allows time for transition between the former Philippine Merchant Marine Officers Law (Presidential Decree No. 97), and the current Philippine Merchant Marine Officers Act of 1998 (Republic Act No. 8544). This is the tenor of PRC Resolution No. 569, which also states that [" ](t)he present Boards for Marine Deck and Engine Officers which where created under P.D. No. 97 are allowed to [’]continue to function in the interim until such time as the new Boards shall be duly constituted[’] under Section 33 (2) of R.A. 8544.[" ]

    Aside from the directive given under PRC Resolution No. 569, the non-adoption of the new rating was also premised on the fact that the Implementing Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Board was not yet effective during the licensure examinations given in April 1998 and July 1998. The new rating system under the new law was only implemented in the licensure examinations given in October 1998. 4

    Petitioners received a copy of the Board’s Order on February 9, 1999. On February 25, 1999, petitioners filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for mandamus, naming the PRC and the Board of Marine Deck Officers as respondents. The Court of Appeals, however, denied the petition, prompting petitioners to seek relief in this Court.

    The Court of Appeals denied the petition on two grounds. First, petitioners did not appeal from the adverse order of the Board of Marine Deck Officers to the PRC but went straight to the Court of Appeals on mandamus, in contravention of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8544, which states:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The policies, resolutions, rules and regulations, issued or promulgated by the Board shall be subject to review and approval of the Commission. The decisions, resolutions or orders rendered by the Board shall be final and executory unless appealed to the Commission within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the decision.

    The Court of Appeals ruled that the 15-day period within which petitioners could appeal to the PRC had already lapsed and that the petition for mandamus could not be used as a substitute for the lost appeal.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    We do not agree that the resort to mandamus in the Court of Appeals was unwarranted. As a rule, where the law provides for the remedies against the action of an administrative board, body, or officer, relief to courts can be sought only after exhausting all remedies provided. 5 The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is not absolute but admits of exceptions. One of these exceptions is when the question is purely legal, 6 such as the one presented in the case at bar. The failure of petitioners to appeal to the PRC, therefore, is not fatal to petitioners’ cause.

    Second, the Court of Appeals held that even if it disregarded "the inappropriateness of Petitioners’ recourse," "the ratings provided for in [Section 17 of] Republic Act 8544 cannot be applied." According to said court," [t]he approval of the Rules and Regulations implementing Republic Act 8544 [pursuant to Section 10 (1)] and the requisite syllabi [under Section 10 (k)] are conditions sine qua non" for the application of Section 17. As these conditions were not satisfied at the time petitioners took the examination, they cannot be deemed to have passed the same.

    The flaw in both the rulings of the Board of Marine Deck Officers and the Court of Appeals is that they apply the passing rating decreed by P.D. No. 97 even when the latter had already lost its effectivity, having been expressly repealed by Section 38 of R.A. No. 8544, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    SECTION 38. Repealing Clause. — Presidential Decree No. 97, as amended, and all other laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations and other administrative issuances and parts thereof which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed.

    Upon the effectivity of the repealing statute, R.A. No. 8544, the repealed statute, P.D. No. 97, in regard to its operative effect, is considered as if it had never existed. Courts, or administrative agencies for that matter, have no power to perpetuate a rule of law that the legislature has repealed. 7

    The Board rationalized its application of the 75% passing rating under P.D. No. 97 on the ground that the syllabi 8 of the subjects had not yet been "prepared, adopted and issued" and the implementing rules and regulations had not been promulgated. The Board’s predicament is understandable, considering that the law had just taken effect on March 25, 1998 and the examination was scheduled to take place on April 25, 26 and 27, 1998. It would appear to us, however, that the solution was to postpone the examination rather than to apply a law that had already been rendered non-existent. 9

    Neither is there anything in Section 33 (2), R.A. No. 8544 that justifies the Board’s action. Said provision simply reads:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SECTION 33. Transitory Provision. —

    (1) xxx

    (2) The present Boards shall continue to function in the interim until such time as the new Board shall be duly constituted pursuant to this Act.

    It does not provide for the continued application of Section 9, P.D. No. 97 pending the Board’s adoption of the new syllabi and the rules and regulations.

    It may be true that R.A. No. 8544, in its intent to raise the standards of the marine profession, prescribes a scope of examination different from that provided for under P.D. No. 97 and its implementing rules. It may also be true that the syllabi and the subsequent examination on April 25-27, 1998 do not conform to the standards laid down by the new law and its own implementing rules. The examinees, however, had a right to assume that respondents had performed their functions in accordance with the applicable law and they should not be prejudiced by the agencies’ mistakes in its implementation.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is GIVEN DUE COURSE and is GRANTED. Petitioners are held to be qualified as having passed the Board Examination for Marine Deck Officers conducted on April 25-27, 1998.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., CJ., Puno, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Under Section 39 of the law, the "Act shall take effect after fifteen days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in any major newspaper of general circulation, whichever comes earlier." Publication in the Malaya took place on March 9, 1998 while publication in the Official Gazette was on July 3, 1998.

    2. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8544, SECTION 3 (a).

    3. 94 O.G. No. 2, July 13, 1998, p. 4956. This was "superseded or repealed" by a Board Resolution No. 1, Series of 1999 (95 O.G. No. 22, May 31, 1999, p. 3699), which in turn, was also repealed by Board Resolution No. 21, Series of 1999 (95 O.G. No. 52, December 27, 1999, p. 9179).

    4. Rollo, pp. 55-56.

    5. Lopez v. City of Manila, 303 SCRA 448 (1999).

    6. Salinas, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 319 SCRA 54 (1999); Espina v. Court of Appeals, 294 SCRA 525 (1998).

    7. 73 Am Jur 2d, Statutes 384.

    8. The syllabi contain the scope of the examination (Section 21, Board Resolution No. 21, Series of 1999). Test questions shall be strictly within the scope of the syllabus of the subject (Section 26, Id.; Section 10 (1c), R.A. No. 8544).

    9. Under Section 8, P.D. No. 97, "The Board of Examiners for Marine Officers shall conduct two examinations in a year, one in the City of Manila, on the last week of January, and another in Cebu or Iloilo alternately, on the last week of July: Provided, however, That if conditions warrant, the Board may, upon approval of the Office of the President consider conducting examination in other places." There is no corresponding provision in R.A. No. 8544, and it appears that the law leaves this matter to the administrative agencies’ discretion. The Board of Marine Deck Officers subsequently enacted Board Resolution No. 21, Series of 1999 (Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 8544, the "Philippine Merchant Marine Officers Act of 1998"), Section 18 of which provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    SEC. 18. Places and Dates of Examination. — The Marine Deck Officers Licensure Examination shall be held at least four times a year in the City of Manila and in such other places a determined by the Board and approved by the Commission. The places/venues and dates of examinations for the year shall be included in the Schedule of Professional Licensure Examinations issued by the Commission.

    G.R. No. 140920   November 19, 2001 - JUAN LORENZO B. BORDALLO, ET AL. v. THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF MARINE DECK OFFICERS


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED