Case Summary (G.R. No. 191906)
Allegations and Formal Charge Details
The Board charged Cordero under Section 15(a) of Republic Act No. 8981 (PRC Modernization Act of 2000) and Sections 23(a), (b) and (f) of Article IV of Republic Act No. 9173 (Philippine Nursing Act of 2002). The charges asserted that Cordero, through INRESS Review Center, made known licensure examination questions relating to Tests III (Medical-Surgical Nursing) and V (Psychiatric Nursing) prior to the exams. Evidence included a PowerPoint presentation used in a final coaching review at SM Manila, which allegedly contained actual test questions identical to those submitted by Board members Anesia B. Dionisio and Virginia D. Madeja, and accompanied by correct answers.
Petitioner's Defense and Due Process Claims
Cordero denied the charges, arguing the absence of documentary evidence and sworn witness statements establishing a prima facie case. He contended that the Formal Charge failed to specify factual bases constituting unprofessional conduct and violated his right to due process by not sufficiently apprising him of the nature and cause of the accusations. He further asserted procedural irregularities, including the Board’s failure to file the complaint with the proper PRC Legal Division or regional offices as required under Resolution No. 06-342(A) and the PRC Rules of Procedure. He emphasized there was no sworn complaint by a complainant and that the Board acted as complainant, prosecutor, and judge simultaneously, thus compromising impartiality.
Board’s Position and Procedural Proceedings
The Board maintained jurisdiction and authority to initiate an administrative investigation motu proprio without a formal complaint from an external complainant. It argued that the formal charge need not be under oath when issued by the Board itself, as the Chairperson’s signature sufficed, given her oath of office and official capacity. The Board also asserted that procedural rules governing administrative investigations are to be liberally construed and that technicalities should not impede factual inquiry.
Jurisdiction and Procedural Compliance under PRC Rules
Article II of the PRC Rules on administrative investigations delineates the procedure for complaints, including who may file and where complaints should be lodged. While typically a complaint must be sworn and filed by a complainant, the Rules expressly allow the Commission or the Board to initiate investigations motu proprio, making the office or section the complainant in such cases. The Court emphasized that strict procedural adherence is not mandatory in administrative cases, which prioritize expedience and fairness but allow for flexibility. Prior jurisprudence confirmed that the lack of sworn complaint or technical informalities do not invalidate administrative cases.
Evidence and Opportunity to be Heard
The Court affirmed that Cordero was afforded the opportunity to answer and dispute the charges. The Formal Charge sufficiently informed him of the allegations, enabling the preparation of his defense. Although he claimed non-receipt of certain documents like affidavits or certified copies of the NBI report, administrative law does not entitle respondents to such discovery prior to hearings. They are, however, entitled to present their side during the proceedings.
Board’s Role as Complainant, Prosecutor, and Adjudicator
Addressing concerns of bias and conflict of interest, the Court distinguished between the Board’s roles. It clarified that, although the Board filed the formal charge, the actual prosecution was conducted by special prosecutors under the Legal and Investigation Division of the PRC, independent from the Board’s adjudicatory function. The Board mainly acted as an adjudicating tribunal, deciding the case on the evidence presented. This division of functions complies with administrative law standards prohibiting a single official from performing both prosecutorial and adjudicatory roles simultaneously.
Jurisprudential and Statutory Bases of Authority
The Court referred to the statutory mandate under RA No. 8981 and RA No. 9173 granting the Board of Nursing powers to regulate the profession, including to investigate, hear, and decide cases involving unprofessional conduct. The PRC Modernization Act tasks the PRC and its Boards with safeguarding the integrity of licensure examinations. The Board’s initiation of
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 191906)
Background and Origin of the Case
- The case stems from the June 2006 Philippine Regulatory Commission (PRC) Nursing Licensure Exams scandal involving the leakage of actual examination questions.
- The controversy severely damaged the credibility of the professional examinations and tarnished the reputation of the Philippine nursing profession.
- INRESS Review Center, headed by petitioner George C. Cordero, was implicated in the controversy.
- A Formal Charge dated November 7, 2006, docketed as Administrative Case No. 419, was issued against Cordero for allegedly making known examination questions to reviewees prior to the exams on June 11 and 12, 2006.
- The Formal Charge was signed by the then Chairperson of the Board of Nursing, Carmencita Abaquin.
Nature and Particulars of the Formal Charge
- Cordero and INRESS Review Center allegedly held a final coaching session on June 8-9, 2006 at a cinema in SM Manila.
- During this session, various exam topics, including Psychiatric Nursing (Test V) and Medical-Surgical Nursing (Test III), were discussed through a PowerPoint presentation.
- The presentation contained 25 actual test questions from Test III and 90 from Test V that appeared on the June 2006 Nurse Licensure Examination.
- The PowerPoint had identical contents with photocopies of typewritten and handwritten questions and answers submitted to the Board by Board members.
- The questions discussed were purportedly prepared by Board members Anesia B. Dionisio and Virginia D. Madeja.
Petitioner’s Defense and Arguments
- Cordero contended the Formal Charge lacked documentary evidence or sworn statements supporting the allegations, thereby failing to establish a prima facie case.
- He claimed the charge did not inform him properly of the nature and cause of the accusation, thus violating his right to due process.
- Argued the Board failed to file a formal complaint in accordance with PRC Resolution No. 06-342(A) and consequent PRC Rules of Procedure.
- Claimed the charge was not filed with the proper Legal Division or Regional Office of the PRC having territorial jurisdiction.
- Asserted the Board was acting simultaneously as complainant, prosecutor, and judge, which allegedly compromised impartiality.
- Denied possession or knowledge of actual examination questions prior to the exam.
- Suggested that any leak could only have come from the PRC since the exam questions are only generated after computer selection and printing.
- Highlighted testimonies from House of Representatives and Senate hearings indicating the leak originated from the PRC.
- Emphasized that overlap between review questions and exam questions could naturally occur due to shared knowledge between examiners and reviewers.
- Limited his participation at the final review session to a brief welcoming and instructions, denying direct involvement in presenting the questioned materials.
- Contended the Formal Charge lacked sufficient factual basis for claims of unprofessional or unethical conduct under RA Nos. 8981 and 9173 and the applicable Code of Ethics.
Procedural History and Jurisdictional Issues Raised
- Cordero repeatedly challenged the Board's jurisdiction and procedural regularity before pre-trial and through various motions, including a Manifestation and Motion asserting procedural defects.