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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 188646)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Formal Charge dated November 7/8, 2006; Summons received by petitioner November 16, 2006. Administrative Case No. 419 before the Board; pre-trial set in 2007–2008; Board resolutions denying petitioner’s motions in 2008; CA decision denying certiorari April 30, 2009 and denying reconsideration June 26, 2009; Supreme Court denial of petition for review by final decision affirmed in 2016.

Applicable Law and Rules

Primary statutes invoked: Republic Act (RA) No. 8981 (PRC Modernization Act of 2000) and RA No. 9173 (Philippine Nursing Act of 2002). PRC Resolution No. 06-342(A) (2006 Rules of Procedure in Administrative Investigations) governed the proceedings at the PRC/Board level; subsequently superseded in 2013 by Resolution No. 2013-775. Constitutional due process standards under the 1987 Constitution framed review of procedural fairness.

Factual Allegations in the Formal Charge

The Formal Charge alleged that Cordero, through INRESS Review Center’s final coaching session on June 8–9, 2006 at a cinema in SM Manila, made known or caused to be made known actual licensure examination questions for Tests III and V (Medical-Surgical and Psychiatric Nursing) prior to the June 11–12, 2006 examinations. The powerpoint presentation shown in the session allegedly contained identical contents to photocopies of typewritten and handwritten questions and answers attributed to Board members Anesia B. Dionisio and Virginia D. Madeja, with claimed matches of 25 items in Test III and 90 items in Test V.

Petitioner’s Principal Defenses

Cordero contended that: (1) The Formal Charge lacked documentary evidence or sworn witness statements to establish a prima facie case; (2) He was not apprised clearly of the nature and cause of accusations, violating due process; (3) The Board failed to comply with PRC procedural requirements for filing a complaint (Resolution No. 06-342(A) and PRC Rules), including filing with the Legal Division or regional office; (4) The Board improperly acted as complainant, prosecutor and judge; (5) He did not possess the actual examination questions before the printed tests were generated by PRC’s TQDS, so any leakage must have come from PRC; (6) His participation was limited to a brief welcoming remark and he did not personally conduct reviews; and (7) The Formal Charge did not sufficiently specify factual bases for unprofessional or unethical conduct warranting revocation or suspension.

Board’s and Special Prosecutors’ Position

The Board and PRC Special Prosecutors argued that: (1) The Board may motu proprio initiate administrative investigations under RA No. 9173 and RA No. 8981 and the PRC Rules; (2) The chairperson’s signing of the Formal Charge sufficed to start the case even if not sworn; (3) The Board acts as the nominal complainant in motu proprio cases while prosecution is conducted by Special Prosecutors from the Legal and Investigation Division; (4) Strict technical rules of procedure and evidence are liberally applied in administrative cases; and (5) The Board did not deny petitioner due process because he had opportunities to be heard and contest evidence.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA denied petitioner’s certiorari petition, holding that the Board did not commit grave abuse amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The CA found that (1) the Board has regulatory, investigatory and adjudicatory powers and may initiate motu proprio administrative actions; (2) the Board, acting on behalf of the public, may be the proper complainant; (3) technical procedural rules are liberally applied in administrative proceedings; and (4) the Board’s nominal signature on the Formal Charge did not automatically disqualify its impartiality given that the charge was filed on prima facie evidence subject to refutation and prosecution was conducted by Special Prosecutors.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Primary issues reviewed: (1) Whether the Board acquired jurisdiction to hear and decide the case despite alleged noncompliance with PRC Rules on filing complaints; (2) Whether the absence of a complaint under oath or the failure to file in specified PRC offices deprived petitioner of due process; and (3) Whether the Board’s role in initiating the case rendered it a combined complainant, prosecutor and judge thereby violating right to an impartial tribunal.

Supreme Court’s Analysis of PRC Jurisdiction and Motu Proprio Power

The Court emphasized the PRC’s mandate under RA No. 8981 to establish and maintain high standards for licensure examinations and the statutory powers of professional regulatory boards (Section 9 of RA No. 8981) to regulate professions, investigate and hear violations, issue subpoenas and impose disciplinary sanctions. Citing Article II, Sections 1–2 and Section 5 of the PRC Rules, the Court explained that while the Rules prescribe filing formal complaints and identify who may file, they expressly allow the Commission or Board to initiate motu proprio investigations, in which case the complainant is the office, section or division where the actionable conduct occurred. Having found a prima facie case, the Board need not wait for an external complainant or strictly follow every technical filing requirement before initiating administrative action.

Supreme Court’s Analysis of Formal Charge Formalities and Evidence Disclosure

On the absence of an oath on the Formal Charge and the lack of immediate disclosure of affidavits, NBI report and documentary evidence, the Court applied the principle of procedural liberality in administrative proceedings. It held that a charge filed by the head of the office (here, the Board chairperson) need not be under oath because the rule requiring an oath is designed to protect respondents from malicious private complaints. The Court further noted precedent denying dismissal for improper venue or lack of oath and reiterated that a respondent in administrative cases is entitled to the admini

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 188646)

Citation and Procedural Posture

Reported at 795 Phil. 735, Third Division; G.R. No. 188646; Decision dated September 21, 2016; original decision received by the Court on October 20, 2016.
Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated April 30, 2009, which denied petitioner’s certiorari petition and found no grave abuse of discretion by the Board of Nursing.
Prior administrative proceedings: Formal Charge docketed as Administrative Case No. 419 (Formal Charge dated November 7, 2006; summons dated November 8, 2006; petitioner received summons November 16, 2006).
Administrative and appellate procedural history includes: denial by the Board of Nursing of motions filed by petitioner (Resolution dated May 16, 2008; Motion for Reconsideration denied September 11, 2008), CA Decision April 30, 2009, CA Resolution denying Motion for Reconsideration dated June 26, 2009, and subsequent elevation to the Supreme Court.

Factual Background and Origin of the Controversy

The controversy originated from the June 2006 Philippine Regulatory Commission (PRC) Nursing Licensure Examinations alleged to have involved leakage of actual examination questions, damaging the credibility of the professional examinations and the nursing profession.
INRESS Review Center (INRESS), headed by petitioner George C. Cordero (Cordero), was one of the review centers implicated in the leakage controversy.
The Formal Charge alleged that, being associated with INRESS Review Center, petitioner “made known or caused to make known” the licensure examination questions in Tests III and V of the June 2006 Nurse Licensure Examinations to his reviewees prior to the examinations on June 11 and 12, 2006.
The Formal Charge alleges that on June 8 and 9, 2006, INRESS held a final coaching review session at a cinema in SM Manila where a PowerPoint presentation discussed various topics, including Psychiatric Nursing (Test V) and Medical-Surgical (Test III).
The Formal Charge alleges that twenty-five (25) items in Test III and ninety (90) items in Test V discussed during the review were actual test questions that came out in the June 2006 examinations.
The Formal Charge alleges the PowerPoint presentation had contents identical with photocopies of typewritten questions and that the PowerPoint showed test questions on Test III and Test V prepared by Board members Anesia B. Dionisio and Virginia D. Madeja.

Formal Charge and Statutory Bases Allegedly Violated

The Formal Charge cited violations of:
- Section 15(a) of Republic Act (RA) No. 8981 (PRC Modernization Act of 2000), which penalizes anyone who manipulates or rigs licensure examination results, secretly informs or makes known licensure examination questions prior to the conduct of the examination, or tampers with grades in professional licensure examinations; penalties include imprisonment and/or fines as specified in the statute.
- Section 23(a), (b) and (f) of Article IV of RA No. 9173 (The Philippine Nursing Act of 2002), provisions which enumerate grounds for revocation or suspension of certificate of registration/professional license, including causes mentioned in the preceding section, unprofessional and unethical conduct, and violation of the Act, rules, Code of Ethics and Board/Commission policies.

Petitioner’s Answer, Defenses and Procedural Objections

Petitioner argued the Formal Charge was unsupported by documentary evidence or sworn witness statements sufficient to establish a prima facie case.
He alleged the Formal Charge failed to apprise him fully of the nature and cause of the accusations, thereby violating his right to due process.
Petitioner contended that the Board initiated a motu proprio administrative investigation but failed to follow the required procedure for filing a formal complaint under PRC Resolution No. 06-342(A) (New Rules of Procedure in Administrative Investigations in the PRC and the Professional Regulatory Boards) and the PRC Rules of Procedure.
He asserted the Board did not file the complaint with the Legal and Investigation Division (Legal Division) of the Central Office or with the Regional Office of the Commission having territorial jurisdiction.
Petitioner claimed the Board was acting as complainant, and that such role would create an impermissible consolidation of complainant, prosecutor and judge.
Factual defenses included: no allegation in the Formal Charge that he possessed actual licensure examination questions prior to the conduct of the examinations; the PRC’s Test Question Data Bank System (TQDS) randomly chooses exam questions only when computers print tests, so prior possession of actual test questions was implausible; if leakage occurred, it could only have originated from the PRC itself based on testimonial evidence during congressional hearings.
Petitioner observed that it is not unusual for questions discussed during last-minute reviews to appear on actual examinations because examiners and reviewers “share the same pool of knowledge from where the questions were drawn.”
He asserted the PowerPoint content shown during the INRESS session differed from alleged board examiner questions shown to him during Senate investigations.
Petitioner described his involvement in the final enhancement review as limited to welcoming and giving a pep talk and brief instructions to reviewees, after which he left and did not personally conduct the review sessions.
He maintained the Formal Charge failed to specify factual bases that would constitute unprofessional or unethical conduct sufficient to justify revocation or suspension of his certificate of registration.

Pre-trial Proceedings, Motions and Issues Raised by Petitioner

Prior to the pre-trial conference on March 13, 2008, petitioner repeatedly raised jurisdictional objections and procedural issues.
Petitioner filed a Manifestation and Motion asserting absence of a properly filed complaint under PRC Rules and Resolution No. 06-342(A), and contending that if the Formal Charge was based on the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Report (October 12, 2006), the NBI should have been the complainant—an assertion he argued was invalid because the NBI is not an office, section or division of the PRC.
Petitioner argued that the Board’s motu proprio filing does not exempt it from Sections 1 and 2, Article II of the PRC Rules requiring a complaint and complainant and that it would be unjust to be tried by a Board acting simultaneously as complainant, prosecutor and judge.
He also raised issues previously, including alleged improper delegation to hearing officers and a Motion for Inhibition of an assigned hearing officer.

Special Prosecutors’ and Board’s Position in Opposition

The Special Prosecut