Case Digest (G.R. No. 220378)
Facts:
Hazel Ma. C. Antolin-Rosero failed the October 1997 CPA Board Exams and requested from the Board of Accountancy and the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) copies of her answer sheets, questionnaires, answer keys, and grading explanation; the BOA/PRC denied the request citing Section 36 of the RRG and Section 20, PRC Resolution No. 338. Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with damages in the RTC, the case was remanded by the Court in Antolin (2010), retried on remand, and the RTC ultimately granted a demurrer to evidence as to some respondents and dismissed the petition after trial; petitioner sought review under Rule 45.
Issues:
- Did petitioner violate the rule against forum shopping by failing to disclose respondent Ibe’s appeal to the Court of Appeals?
- Did petitioner timely assail the RTC Omnibus Orders dated December 19, 2013 and April 8, 2014?
- Did the RTC err in dismissing the petition for mandamus by holding that petitioner’s right to information is limited by Section 20, PRC Resolution No. 338 and that petitioner failed to prove the test bank contained at least 2,000 questions?
Ruling:
The Court denied the petition. The Court found no forum shopping and ruled that petitioner timely assailed the Omnibus Orders together with the RTC decision after final disposition; the Court then affirmed the RTC’s dismissal on the merits. The Court held that mandamus will not lie to compel release of the examination documents because Section 20, PRC Resolution No. 338 is a valid, reasonable limitation and petitioner failed to prove the statutory condition for disclosure.
Ratio:
The Court recognized the constitutional right to information (Section 7, Article III of the Constitution) and Section 5(e), RA 6713, but reiterated that these rights are subject to limitations provided by law and by statute’s implementing rules, including confidentiality exceptions in Section 7(c), RA 6713 and its IRR. Pursuant to PD 223, the PRC has rule‑making power and Section 20, PRC Resolution No. 338 — barring release of questions given in examinations unless the test bank has at least two thousand questions — has the force of law and is a reasonable measure to protect examination integrity; petitioner failed to prove the factual condition (2,000 questions), and the Court, sitting in certiorari review, could not retry those factual findings.
Doctrine:
- The constitutional right to information and Section 5(e), RA 6713 are not absolute and are subject to statutory and regulatory exceptions.
- Rules and resolutions promulgated by the PRC pursuant to PD 223 have the force of law when within the PRC’s delegated authority.
- Section 20, PRC Resolution No. 338 is a reasonable regulation to protect the confidentiality and integrity of licensure examinations.
- A writ of mandamus issues only when the petitioner shows a clear legal right, a corresponding duty, and absence of other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
- The Supreme Court in a Rule 45 petition reviews errors of law and will not disturb factual findings of the trial court on matters such as the content or number of questions in a test bank.