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.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 262686)

Applicable Law and Background

Republic Act No. 8544, known as the Philippine Merchant Marine Officers Act of 1998, was enacted by President Fidel V. Ramos on February 24, 1998, and took effect on March 25, 1998. This law aimed to regulate the practice of the merchant marine profession and emphasized the establishment of standards for the licensure and competency of marine officers. Key provisions of the law include the requirements for examinations, including a passing rating of 70% and the stipulations regarding the qualifications of applicants.

Examination and Results

The Board of Marine Deck Officers conducted examinations for marine deck officer licensure on April 25, 26, and 27, 1998. Bordallo, de Castro, and Olarte participated in this examination but subsequently received notifications that they had failed. The critical point was that although all petitioners achieved a general weighted average above 70%, none met the previous standard of 75% mandated by the now-repealed Presidential Decree No. 97. The petitioners argued that under the provisions of R.A. No. 8544, they should be deemed to have passed the examination.

Legal Proceedings

Upon receiving their failing results, the petitioners filed a petition before the Board of Marine Deck Officers on May 21, 1998, asserting that they qualified as having passed the exam based on the new law. However, the Board relied on PRC Resolution No. 569, which continued the application of the 75% passing standard from the former decree, citing that the implementing regulations had not yet been established.

Board's Rationale

On January 22, 1999, the Board denied the petitioners' request. The Board's rationale included the directive from the PRC and the contention that since the syllabi and implementing rules for R.A. No. 8544 were not in effect during the April 1998 examinations, the previous passing standard should be upheld until formal regulations were established.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The petitioners later sought mandamus from the Court of Appeals, which denied their petition based on procedural grounds and a determination that the petitioners had not appealed to the PRC within the designated time frame. The Court also supported the Board’s reasoning that the new passing standards could not be applied due to the lack of implemented rules and syllabi at the time of the examination.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the rationale used by both the Board and the Court of Appeals was flawed. The Court clarified that the repealing clause in R.A. No. 8544 explicitly rendered Presidential Decree No

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.