A.M. No. RTJ-10-2217 - Decena vs. Malanyaon

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-10-2217)

Factual Background

Petitioner took the October 1997 Certified Public Accountant licensure examinations and failed four subjects. After being shown only shaded marks on her answer sheets, she requested copies of the questionnaires for all seven subjects, her answer sheets, the answer keys, and an explanation of the grading system so an expert could check her performance. BOA (through its Acting Chairman Domondon) declined, citing: (a) Section 36, Article III of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Regulation and Practice of Professionals (RRG) which limits reconsideration to mechanical error or malfeasance and permits access to the examinee’s answer sheet within a specified period; and (b) Section 20 of PRC Resolution No. 338 (1994), which penalizes providing or reproducing questions that have been given in the examination except where a subject’s test bank contains at least 2,000 questions.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed a mandamus with damages in the RTC (1998), amended the petition twice, and later impleaded the PRC. During pendency petitioner passed the May 1998 CPA exams and took the oath. The RTC initially dismissed as moot but later—after reconsideration—ordered preservation of the examination documents and remanded. Multiple certiorari petitions went to the Court of Appeals; the Supreme Court (in an earlier consolidated Antolin decision) reversed CA rulings and remanded for further proceedings, recognizing the constitutional issue but declining to allow mandamus to compel recorrection. Trial ensued in RTC Branch 41; respondents filed a motion for judgment on demurrer to evidence which was granted as to certain individual respondents in Omnibus Orders dated December 19, 2013 and April 8, 2014. After trial the RTC dismissed the petition for mandamus (Decision dated July 20, 2015) and denied reconsideration (Omnibus Order September 11, 2015). Petitioner sought Supreme Court review; respondents raised procedural and substantive defenses.

Issues Presented

Procedural: (1) Whether petitioner violated forum‑shopping rules by failing to notify the Supreme Court of respondent Ibe’s appeal before the Court of Appeals; and (2) whether petitioner timely assailed the RTC Omnibus Orders granting the demurrer to evidence.
Substantive: Whether petitioner’s constitutional right to information and statutory right under RA 6713 (to access public documents during reasonable working hours) entitled her to a writ of mandamus compelling release of the requested examination documents, or whether administrative regulations (notably PRC Resolution No. 338, Section 20) validly restrict that access.

Applicable Legal Framework and Standards

Constitutional foundations: 1987 Constitution — Article III, Section 7 (right to information on matters of public concern, subject to limitations provided by law) and Article II, Section 28 (state policy of full public disclosure subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law).
Statutory and regulatory provisions: RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), Section 5(e) (public documents must be accessible within reasonable working hours) and Section 7(c) (prohibition on disclosure/misuse of confidential information); IRR of RA 6713 (exceptions to disclosure, Rule IV, Section 3); PD No. 223 (creation of PRC and grant of rule‑making powers, Section 5); RRG Section 36 (limited post‑examination access and grounds for reconsideration); PRC Resolution No. 338 Sections 9, 14 and 20 (test bank deposit rules, withdrawal/replacement of used questions, and prohibition on providing/reproducing questions given in the examination except where test bank per subject has at least 2,000 questions).
Remedy standards: Rule 65, Section 3 (writ of mandamus issues only where a clear, specific legal duty exists and there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy); Rule 45 review by the Supreme Court is limited primarily to errors of law (not reweighing factual findings).

Court’s Procedural Analysis (forum shopping and timeliness)

Forum‑shopping: The Court applied the two‑fold rule on certifications against forum shopping (Rules 42 and 45) and the test for litis pendentia. Although there was identity of parties and common factual origin between the present petition and respondent Ibe’s appeal to the CA, the Court found no identity of rights and reliefs because petitioner’s petition sought reversal of RTC dispositions dismissing her mandamus claim against certain respondents and the RTC decision dismissing the petition as to PRC and Ibe, whereas Ibe’s CA appeal concerned only denial of Ibe’s counterclaim for damages. Consequently, there was no contemptuous forum shopping and the strict disclosure requirement was not breached; moreover, even if a disclosure omission existed, the Court exercised procedural leniency to reach the substantive constitutional question.
Timeliness of assaults on Omnibus Orders: The Court held petitioner timely assailed the RTC Omnibus Orders (December 19, 2013 and April 8, 2014) together with the RTC Decision (July 20, 2015) because the orders did not finally dispose of the main action while it remained pending, and under Rule 41 Section 1(f) interlocutory orders against some parties are not immediately appealable. Petitioner properly awaited final disposition of the whole case and then sought Supreme Court review.

Mandamus Standard and Its Application

Mandamus requires (1) a clear legal right of the petitioner to the act sought to be compelled, (2) a plain duty on the part of the respondent to perform the act, and (3) absence of any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The Court emphasized that the right invoked (right to information) must be well defined, clear and certain for mandamus to issue. Applying these requisites, the Court evaluated whether petitioner held a clear legal right to the requested examination documents under the Constitution, RA 6713 and implementing regulations, or whether those materials fell within lawful exceptions.

Substantive Analysis — Right to Information versus Legitimate Restrictions

Matter of public concern: The Court reaffirmed that national board examinations are matters of public concern because the public and examinees have an interest in the fair and competent administration of licensure exams. Accordingly, the right to information doctrine applies but is not absolute.
Permissible statutory/regulatory restrictions: The constitutional guarantee of access is expressly subject to limitations as provided by law. RA 6713’s mandate to make documents accessible (Section 5(e)) must be read together with Section 7(c) (which protects confidential information) and the IRR (which enumerates categories of exempt records). PRC’s rule‑making authority under PD 223 permits promulgation of rules for licensure examinations; PRC Resolution No. 338 was promulgated pursuant to those powers to implement computerized licensure examinations and to regulate test bank confidentiality. Section 20 of PRC Resolution No. 338 prohibits providing, obtaining, holding, using or reproducing questions that have been given in the examination, subject to the exception that the test bank for the subject has at least 2,000 questions. The Court treated Section 20 as a valid administrative regulation with the force of law and a reasonable restriction given the PRC’s statutory mandate and the need to protect examination integrity.

Reasons Supporting Reasonableness of PRC Resolution No. 338, Section 20

Practical and institutional considerations: The PRC administers numerous licensure examinations with hundreds of thousands of examinees annually and a Ratings Division with limited staff; allowing widespread access to used questions would impose onerous administrative burdens and impair the PRC’s ability to perform core functions. Confidentiality and integrity concerns: Release of used multiple‑choice questions (and answer keys) risks dissemination and circulation of questions and answers, giving undue advantage to future examinees and undermining the examinations as reliable measures of competence. Test bank mechanics and examiner discretion: Although Section 14 of PRC Resolution No. 338 mandates withdrawal of used questions and permits redeposit after modification, the absence of

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-10-2217)

Title, Citation, and Nature of Case

Case styled as Hazel Ma. C. Antolin-Rosero v. Professional Regulation Commission, Board of Accountancy, and Abelardo T. Domondon, Reynaldo D. Gamboa, Jose A. Gangan, Violeta J. Josef, Jose V. Ramos, and Antonieta Fortuna-Ibe.
G.R. No. 220378; Decision dated June 30, 2021 by the Third Division of the Supreme Court.
Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside Omnibus Orders dated December 19, 2013 and April 8, 2014, Omnibus Order dated September 11, 2015, and the RTC Decision dated July 20, 2015 of Branch 41, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila.
Relief sought: primarily issuance of writ of mandamus to compel production of examination documents and related reliefs; petitioner also sought damages in earlier pleadings.

Case Antecedents and Context

Petitioner Hazel Ma. C. Antolin-Rosero was an examinee in the October 1997 Certified Public Accountant (CPA) board examinations administered by the Board of Accountancy (BOA).
Of 6,482 examinees in October 1997, 1,171 passed; petitioner initially failed, receiving failing grades in four of seven subjects.
Petitioner’s reported October 1997 grades: Theory of Accounts 65%; Business Law 66%; Management Services 69%; Auditing Theory 82%; Auditing Problems 70%; Practical Accounting I 68%; Practical Accounting II 77%.
Petitioner requested recorrection and access to examination-related documents (collectively: questionnaires for each subject, her answer sheets, answer keys, and explanation of the grading system) after release of results.

Initial Administrative Responses and Grounds for Denial

Petitioner was shown her answer sheets on November 3, 1997; the answer sheets consisted merely of shaded marks, preventing meaningful review.
On November 10, 1997 petitioner formally requested copies of questionnaires, her answer sheets, answer keys, and grading explanation.
Acting BOA Chairman Abelardo T. Domondon denied the request on two primary grounds:
- Section 36, Article III of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Regulation and Practice of Professionals (RRG), as amended by PRC Resolution No. 332 (1994), permitted access only to an examinee’s answer sheet as shown; reconsideration of results was proper only on grounds stated in Section 36 (mechanical error or malfeasance).
- Section 20 of PRC Resolution No. 338 (1994) prohibited providing, getting, receiving, holding, using or reproducing questions that have been given in the examination except where the test bank for the subject had on deposit at least 2,000 questions.

Filing in RTC — Prayer and Parties

Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with damages before the RTC on January 12, 1998, docketed as Civil Case No. 98-86881 in Branch 33, initially.
Reliefs prayed for included: preliminary mandatory injunction ordering BOA and members to furnish copies of examination papers; final judgment compelling production of all documents and materials enabling petitioner to determine fairness and correct grading and, if warranted, issuance of CPA certificate (the latter prayer was later deleted in amended petition).
Respondents named: BOA and its members (Conchita L. Manabat was later omitted by petitioner in the Rule 45 caption), later joined by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC).

Amendments to Petition and Change in Relief

Petitioner filed an Amended Petition (March 3, 1998) deleting the prayer for issuance of a CPA certificate and clarifying that she sought access to documents pursuant to constitutional right to information, not recorrection.
Petitioner later filed a Second Amended Petition (October 5, 2001) which impleaded the PRC and renewed the request for documents enabling review and, if warranted, appropriate revisions to results.

Developments While Case Was Pending — Petitioner’s Subsequent Exam and Initial RTC Rulings

Petitioner took and passed the May 1998 CPA Board Exams and took her oath as a CPA during pendency of the mandamus petition.
RTC initially dismissed the application for preliminary mandatory injunction on October 16, 1998 on grounds of mootness because petitioner had passed the May 1998 exam and taken her oath.
RTC again dismissed the petition on motion for mootness on June 21, 2002 for similar reason; petitioner sought reconsideration and the RTC reversed on November 11, 2002, admitting the Second Amended Complaint and ordering PRC to preserve and safeguard certain documents (questionnaires for the seven subjects, petitioner’s answer sheets, and answer keys) and to make them available as needed by court or petitioner.
RTC thereafter denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration on January 30, 2003.

Appeals to Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Prior Remand

Multiple certiorari petitions were filed in the Court of Appeals (CA) by different respondents challenging RTC orders; the CA vacated the RTC’s November 11, 2002 and January 30, 2003 orders in CA-G.R. SP No. 76498, reinstating dismissal on grounds including Section 20 of PRC Resolution No. 338 being a valid limitation on access and mootness.
Separate CA decisions included dismissal for litis pendentia and grants of certiorari dismissing petition for mandamus as moot in one case.
Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court in consolidated petitions (G.R. Nos. 165036 and 175705). In Antolin v. Domondon, et al., the Supreme Court (Decision dated July 5, 2010) granted the petitions, set aside the CA decisions, affirmed the RTC orders dated November 11, 2002 and January 30, 2003, and remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings — emphasizing that petitioner’s subsequent passing did not render her interest in the documents automatically moot and recognizing national board examinations as matters of public concern meriting review of PRC regulations if necessary.

Proceedings on Remand: Pleadings, Discovery, and Trial

On remand the PRC filed its Answer (April 5, 2011) and attached Certification (February 24, 2011) by an Officer-in-Charge of the Ratings Division certifying that the test question data bank for any given subject had not reached 2,000 marks since 1994 up to present.
Case proceeded through Judicial Dispute Resolution efforts that failed; matter re-raffled to RTC Branch 41, pre-trial, and trial.
Petitioner presented one witness — her father, Atty. Nelson Antolin. Respondent Antonieta Ibe presented a witness for her counterclaim. PRC presented one witness, Ms. Sarah Datoon, a computer programmer in the Ratings Division, who testified on the heavy volume of examinations, manpower scarcity (22 employees in Ratings Division), the number of examinations and examinees per year (102 examinations annually; in 2013 about 430,179 examinees), and quarantine procedures that constrain Ratings Division personnel.

Motion for Judgment on Demurrer to Evidence and RTC Omnibus Orders (Dec. 19, 2013 & Apr. 8, 2014)

On August 29, 2013, respondents Domondon, Gamboa, Gangan, and Josef filed a motion for judgment on demurrer to evidence arguing, among others, that they did not possess the examination documents; that Section 20 of PRC Resolution No. 338 prohibits release of examination documents absent condition of 2,000 questions in test bank; that BOA had turned over papers to PRC and lost jurisdiction; that respondents no longer were BOA members and could not be compelled; that petitioner failed to rebut presumption of regularity under Section 3(m), Rule 131, Rules of Court; and that petitioner did not satisfy Section 20 condition for release.
PRC joined the demurrer to the evidence.
RTC Omnibus Order dated December 19, 2013 granted the demurrer to evidence as to Domondon, Gamboa, Josef and Gangan, dismissing the case against them, holding that paragraph 3, Section 20(A) of PRC Resolution No. 338 constitutes a limitation on petitioner’s constitutional right to access information and that petitioner’s evidence failed to show the test bank contained more than 2,000 questions.
Petitioner filed motion for reconsideration; respondents Ibe and PRC filed motions to dismiss. RTC Omnibus