Title
Bordallo vs. Professional Regulation Commission
Case
G.R. No. 140920
Decision Date
Nov 19, 2001
Petitioners passed 1998 Marine Officer exams under R.A. No. 8544's 70% rating, invalidating Board's use of P.D. No. 97's 75% standard. SC ruled in their favor.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 140920)

Facts:

1. Enactment of Republic Act No. 8544:

  • On February 24, 1998, President Fidel V. Ramos approved Republic Act No. 8544, also known as the "Philippine Merchant Marine Officers Act of 1998." The law took effect on March 25, 1998, after its publication in the Malaya newspaper.
  • The law aimed to institutionalize changes to ensure that only qualified, competent, and globally competitive Marine Deck/Engineer Officers could practice the Merchant Marine profession.

2. Examination Requirements:

  • Section 17 of R.A. No. 8544 states that to pass the board examination for Marine Deck/Engineer Officer, a candidate must obtain a weighted general average of 70%, with no grade lower than 60% in any subject.
  • This passing rating (70%) was lower than the 75% required under the previous law, Presidential Decree No. 97.

3. Conduct of Examinations:

  • On April 25-27, 1998, the Board of Marine Deck Officers conducted examinations for deck officers. Petitioners Juan Lorenzo Bordallo, Restituto de Castro, and Noel Olarte took the examinations for Chief Mate, Second Mate, and Third Mate, respectively.
  • At the time of the examination, the Board had not yet issued the syllabi or the rules and regulations required by R.A. No. 8544.

4. Examination Results:

  • Petitioners received notices that they failed their respective examinations. While their general weighted averages were above 70%, none met the 75% requirement under P.D. No. 97, which was still being applied by the Board.

5. Petitioners' Appeal:

  • On May 21, 1998, petitioners filed a petition before the Board of Marine Deck Officers, arguing that they should be considered as having passed under Section 17 of R.A. No. 8544.
  • The Board denied their petition on January 22, 1999, citing PRC Resolution No. 569, which allowed the continued use of P.D. No. 97's grading system until the new rules and syllabi were implemented.

6. Court Proceedings:

  • Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus before the Court of Appeals, which was denied. The Court of Appeals ruled that petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that the new rating system under R.A. No. 8544 could not be applied retroactively.

Issue:

  1. Whether petitioners should be considered as having passed the April 1998 examination under Section 17 of R.A. No. 8544, despite the Board's application of P.D. No. 97's 75% passing rating.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for mandamus on the grounds of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the inapplicability of R.A. No. 8544's passing rating.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court granted the petition and ruled in favor of the petitioners. The Court held that:

  1. Applicability of R.A. No. 8544:

    • R.A. No. 8544 had already repealed P.D. No. 97 upon its effectivity on March 25, 1998. Therefore, the Board's continued application of P.D. No. 97's 75% passing rating was erroneous.
    • The Board should have applied the 70% passing rating under R.A. No. 8544, as the law was already in effect at the time of the April 1998 examination.
  2. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies:

    • The Court ruled that the failure to exhaust administrative remedies was not fatal in this case, as the issue presented was purely legal and fell under an exception to the exhaustion rule.
  3. Prejudice to Examinees:

    • The Court emphasized that examinees had the right to assume that the Board would conduct the examination in accordance with the applicable law. Petitioners should not be prejudiced by the Board's failure to implement R.A. No. 8544 properly.

Ratio:

  1. Repeal of P.D. No. 97:

    • Upon the effectivity of R.A. No. 8544, P.D. No. 97 was repealed and could no longer be applied. The Board's reliance on P.D. No. 97's 75% passing rating was invalid.
  2. Legal Exception to Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:

    • The rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies is not absolute. When the issue is purely legal, as in this case, direct recourse to the courts is permissible.
  3. Examinees' Rights:

    • Examinees have the right to expect that examinations will be conducted in accordance with the law in effect at the time. The Board's failure to implement R.A. No. 8544 properly should not disadvantage the examinees.
  4. Implementation of New Laws:

    • Administrative agencies must ensure that new laws are implemented promptly and correctly. If the necessary rules and syllabi are not ready, the examination should be postponed rather than applying outdated standards.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners should be considered as having passed the April 1998 examination under the 70% passing rating prescribed by R.A. No. 8544. The Board's application of P.D. No. 97's 75% passing rating was invalid, and petitioners should not be prejudiced by the Board's failure to implement the new law properly.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.