G.R. No. 188646 - Cordero vs. Board of Nursing

The controversy arose from the June 2006 Philippine Regulatory Commission (PRC) Nursing Licensure Examinations involving leakage of actual examination questions.
The leakage damaged the reputation of the professional examinations and the Philippine nursing profession.
The INRESS Review Center, headed by petitioner George C. Cordero (Cordero), was linked to the controversy.

On November 16, 2006, Cordero received a Summons dated November 8, 2006 from the Board of Nursing (Board) requiring him to file a counter-affidavit/verified answer to the Formal Charge.
The Formal Charge, signed by then Board Chairperson Carmencita Abaquin, alleged violations of Section 15(a) of Republic Act (RA) No. 8981 and Sections 23(a), (b), and (f) of Article IV of RA No. 9173.
The Formal Charge stated that Cordero, through INRESS Review Center, made actual licensure examination questions known to reviewees prior to the exam (June 11 and 12, 2006).
It referred specifically to:

Twenty-five (25) items in Test III (Medical-Surgical Nursing) and ninety (90) items in Test V (Psychiatric Nursing) discussed during a final coaching review session on June 8 and 9, 2006 at SM Manila.
The PowerPoint presentation used contained questions identical to the actual exam questions prepared by Board members Anesia B. Dionisio and Virginia D. Madeja.
Similarities in handwritten questions and answers compared to those in the presentation and actual examination.

Cordero argued that the Formal Charge was unsupported by documentary evidence or sworn statements from witnesses and lacked a prima facie basis.
He claimed his right to due process was violated because the nature and cause of accusations were not sufficiently apprised.
He cited a failure of the Board to comply with PRC Rules of Procedure and Resolution No. 06-342 (A), pointing out that no formal complaint was filed through the proper channels (Legal Division or Regional Office with jurisdiction).
Cordero protested that the Board acted as complainant, prosecutor, and judge simultaneously, resulting in bias.
He denied possession or prior knowledge of the examination questions before the exam date and suggested the leak originated from within the PRC itself, relying on PRC officials' testimonies during Congressional hearings.
He emphasized that last-minute review questions often overlap with exam questions due to shared knowledge pools and pointed out differences between the PowerPoint presentation content and the leaked questions shown in Senate hearings.
Cordero's role was limited to welcoming the reviewees and giving a briefing, not conducting the review sessions himself.

Prior to the pre-trial conference on March 13, 2008, Cordero raised issues on jurisdiction and the Board's competence to hear the case.
He filed a Manifestation and Motion asserting the absence of a proper complaint, the improper filing authority in the Board, and that the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), whose report was the basis of the Formal Charge, was not considered a proper complainant under PRC Rules.
The Board denied these motions and ruled that no verified complaint was necessary, and the Chairperson's signature sufficed to establish a prima facie case.
The Board stressed that it acts as an adjudicating body and that prosecution duties are delegated to the Special Prosecutors of the PRC Legal and Investigation Division.
A Motion for Reconsideration filed by Cordero was denied.

Cordero filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Board.
On April 30, 2009, the CA denied the petition, affirming the Board's jurisdiction and ruling that the Board had regulatory and investigatory powers apart from adjudication.
The CA held that the Board, as the aggrieved party acting on behalf of the public, was the proper complainant.
The CA ruled that administrative due process does not require strict adherence to procedural rules applicable in judicial cases.
The CA found no bias or denial of due process in the Board's actions.
Cordero’s Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied by the CA.

Cordero reiterated his claims that the Board lacked jurisdiction due to failure to comply with procedural requirements for filing complaints under PRC Rules.
He alleged deprivation of due process from the lack of a formal complaint and complainant.
He also argued that the Board's role as complainant and adjudicator denied him a fair trial.
The Board contended that it was empowered to issue Formal Charges, initiate administrative action motu proprio, and that no due process was denied.
The Board further asserted the administrative investigation was stalled by Cordero’s repeated motions on due process grounds.

Whether the Board of Nursing had jurisdiction to initiate and hear the administrative case against petitioner George C. Cordero despite the absence of a formal complaint filed by a third-party complainant in accordance with the PRC Rules of Procedure.

Whether the failure of the Board to file a verified complaint endorsed by an office, section, or division of the PRC having territorial jurisdiction over petitioner vitiates the administrative proceedings and constitutes a denial of due process.

Whether the Board’s simultaneous roles as complainant, prosecutor, and judge violated petitioner’s right to a fair and impartial trial.