3/5/2017 BordallovsProfessionalRegulationsCommission:140920:November19,2001:J.

Kapunan:FirstDivision

FIRSTDIVISION

[G.R.No.140920.November19,2001]

JUAN LORENZO B. BORDALLO, RESTITUTO G. DE CASTRO and NOEL G.

OLARTE, petitioners, vs. THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS
COMMISSIONandTHEBOARDOFMARINEDECKOFFICERS,respondents.

DECISION
KAPUNAN,J.:

OnFebruary24,1998,PresidentFidelV.RamosapprovedRepublicActNo.8544,entitledAnActRegulating
thePracticeoftheMerchantMarineProfessioninthePhilippines,otherwiseknownasthePhilippineMerchantMarine
OfficersActof1998.The law took effect on March 25, 1998, after fifteen (15) days following its publication in the
Malaya.[1]
Section 2 of R.A. No. 8544 declares it the policy of the State to institutionalize radical changes as required by
international and national standards to insure that only qualified, competent and globally competitive Marine
Deck/Engineer Officers as determined through licensure examinations shall be allowed entry to the practice of the
Merchant Marine profession. The law provides for, and governs, among others, the examination, registration and
issuance of Certificate of Competency to Merchant Marine Officers.[2] Article V (Examination, Registration and
CertificateofCompetency)ofthelawcontainsprovisionsrequiringexaminations(Section13),prescribingqualifications
ofapplicantsforexamination(Section14)anddefiningthescopeoftheexamination(Section15).Inaddition,Section
17laysdowntherequirementsforanexamineetobequalifiedashavingpassedtheexamination:

RatingintheBoardExaminations.TobequalifiedashavingpassedtheboardexaminationforMarineDeck/Engineer
Officer,acandidatemustobtainaweightedgeneralaverageofseventypercent(70%),withnogradelowerthansixty
percent(60%)inanygivensubject.Anexamineewhoobtainsaweightedgeneralaverageratingofseventy(70%)but
obtainsaratingbelowsixtypercent(60%)inanygivensubjectmusttaketheexaminationinthesubjectorsubjects
whereheobtainedagradebelowsixtypercent(60%).

Significantly, the passing rating prescribed by the above provision (70%) is lower than that prescribed by
PresidentialDecreeNo.97(RegulatingthePracticeoftheMarineProfessionsinthePhilippines),otherwiseknownas
thePhilippineMerchantMarineOfficersLaw.Section9thereofsetsapassingratingofseventyfivepercent(75%)thus:

Examinationrating.Anexamineehavingobtainedageneralweightedaverageofseventyfivepercentorabovewith
noratingbelow60%inanysubjectProvided,however,anyexamineefailingtogetthegeneralweightedaverageof
seventyfivepercentshallberequiredtotakeareexaminationinallthesubjectsprescribedbytheBoard.

R.A.No.8544alsoprovidesforthecreationoftheBoardofMarineDeskOfficers.AmongtheBoardspowers
andduties,assetforthinSection10,are:
xxx

(k)InaccordancewiththeSTCW78Conventionanditsamendments,toprepare,adoptandissuethesyllabiofthe
subjectsforexaminationsbydeterminingandpreparingthequestionswhichshallstrictlybewithinthescopeofthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/nov2001/140920.htm 1/5
3/5/2017 BordallovsProfessionalRegulationsCommission:140920:November19,2001:J.Kapunan:FirstDivision

syllabusofthesubjectsforexamination

(l)Topromulgate,administerandenforcerulesandregulationsnecessaryforcarryingouttheprovisionsofthisAct,in
accordancewiththecharteroftheProfessionalRegulationCommissionandtheSTCW78Convention,asamended:
Provided,Thatincaseofsubsequentorfutureamendmentstoanyinternationalconvention(s)/conferenceofwhichthe
Philippinesisasignatory,theBoardisempoweredtoamend/reviseitsrulesandregulationstoconformwiththe
amendmentsofsaidconvention(s)withouttheneedofamendingthisenablingAct

xxx
TheBoardisalsoempoweredtoadoptandpromulgatethelawsImplementingRulesandRegulations:

SEC.34.ImplementingRulesandRegulations.Subjecttotheapprovalofthecommission,theBoardshalladoptand
promulgatesuchrulesandregulations,includingtheCodeofEthicsforMarineDeck/EngineerOfficers,tocarryoutthe
provisionsofthisAct,whichshallbeeffectiveafterthirty(30)daysfollowingtheirpublicationintheOfficialGazetteor
inamajordailynewspaperofgeneralcirculation.

OnApril25,26and27,1998,respondentBoardofMarineDeckOfficersconductedtheexaminationfordeck
officers. Petitioner Juan Lorenzo Bordallo took the examination for Chief Mate, petitioner Restituto de Castro for
SecondMate,andpetitionerNoelOlarteforThirdMate.Atthattime,theBoardhadnotyetissuedthesyllabiandthe
rulesandregulationspursuanttoRepublicActNo.8455.
Subsequently, petitioners received notices from respondent Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC) that they
failedintheirrespectiveexaminations.PetitionerssecuredcertificationsfromthePRCtheirrespectiveratings.None of
thepetitionersobtainedageneralweightedaverageof75%,althoughallofthemhadgeneralweightedaveragesofmore
than70%.Noneofthemhadaratingoflessthan60%inanyofthesubjects.
On May 21, 1998, petitioners filed a petition before the Board of Marine Deck Officers claiming that, in
accordancewithSection17ofR.A.No.8544,theyshouldbeconsideredashavingpassedtheApril1998Examination
forDeckOfficers.
In the meantime, the PRC issued in relation to the July 1998 examinations PRC Resolution No. 569, Series of
1998,stating:

Consideringthatthesyllabiofthesubjectsforexaminationhavenotasyetbeenprepared,adoptedandissuedpursuant
toSection10(k)inrelationtoSection16ofR.A.No.8544,theBoardsforMarineDeckandEngineOfficersshallissue
programsofexaminationswhichshallcontainthesubjectsforexaminationandconsidering,further,thattheweightsof
thesubjectsforexaminationremainthesame,thegradingsystemadoptedbytheBoardsunderP.D.No.97shall
continuetobeusedinthesaidexaminations.

The Board, on June 9, 1998, promulgated Board Resolution No. 1, Series of 1998 (the Rules and Regulations
ImplementingRepublicActNo.8544).[3]
OnJanuary22,1999,theBoardofMarineDeckOfficersissuedanOrderdenyingthepetition,ratiocinating:

TheBoardisguidedbyadirectiveissuedbytheProfessionalRegulationCommissionunderPRCResolutionNo.569,
Seriesof1998,xxx.

xxx

While,admittedly,theabovequotedResolutionwasissuedforthelicensureexaminationsgiveninJuly1998,subsequent
tothelicensureexaminationtakenbypetitioners,itundoubtedlyappliestothepreviousexaminationgiveninApril1998.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/nov2001/140920.htm 2/5
3/5/2017 BordallovsProfessionalRegulationsCommission:140920:November19,2001:J.Kapunan:FirstDivision

RepublicActNo.8455mayhavebeengiveneffect,underitsownprovisions,afterfifteen[15]daysfollowingits
publicationintheOfficialGazetteorinanymajornewspaperofgeneralcirculation,whichevercomesearlier.However,
thesamelawallowstimefortransitionbetweentheformerPhilippineMerchantMarineOfficersLaw(Presidential
DecreeNo.97),andthecurrentPhilippineMerchantMarineOfficersActof1998(RepublicActNo.8544).Thisisthe
tenorofPRCResolutionNo.569,whichalsostatesthat[](t)hepresentBoardsforMarineDeckandEngineOfficers
whichwherecreatedunderP.D.No.97areallowedto[]continuetofunctionintheinterimuntilsuchtimeasthenew
Boardsshallbedulyconstituted[]underSection33(2)ofR.A.8544.[]

AsidefromthedirectivegivenunderPRCResolutionNo.569,thenonadoptionofthenewratingwasalsopremisedon
thefactthattheImplementingRulesandRegulationspromulgatedbytheBoardwasnotyeteffectiveduringthelicensure
examinationsgiveninApril1998andJuly1998.Thenewratingsystemunderthenewlawwasonlyimplementedinthe
licensureexaminationsgiveninOctober1998.[4]

Petitioners received a copy of the Boards Order on February 9, 1999.On February 25, 1999, petitioners filed
before the Court of Appeals a petition for mandamus, naming the PRC and the Board of Marine Deck Officers as
respondents.TheCourtofAppeals,however,deniedthepetition,promptingpetitionerstoseekreliefinthisCourt.
TheCourtofAppealsdeniedthepetitionontwogrounds.First,petitionersdidnotappealfromtheadverseorder
of the Board of Marine Deck Officers to the PRC but went straight to the Court of Appeals on mandamus, in
contraventionofSection10ofR.A.No.8544,whichstates:

Thepolicies,resolutions,rulesandregulations,issuedorpromulgatedbytheBoardshallbesubjecttoreviewand
approvaloftheCommission.Thedecisions,resolutionsorordersrenderedbytheBoardshallbefinalandexecutory
unlessappealedtotheCommissionwithinfifteen(15)daysfromreceiptofthedecision.

TheCourtofAppealsruledthatthe15dayperiodwithinwhichpetitionerscouldappealtothePRChadalreadylapsed
andthatthepetitionformandamuscouldnotbeusedasasubstituteforthelostappeal.
WedonotagreethattheresorttomandamusintheCourtofAppealswasunwarranted.Asarule,wherethelaw
providesfortheremediesagainsttheactionofanadministrativeboard,body,orofficer,relieftocourtscanbesought
only after exhausting all remedies provided.[5] The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is not absolute but
admitsofexceptions.Oneoftheseexceptionsiswhenthequestionispurelylegal,[6]suchastheonepresentedinthe
caseatbar.ThefailureofpetitionerstoappealtothePRC,therefore,isnotfataltopetitionerscause.
Second, the Court of Appeals held that even if it disregarded the inappropriateness of Petitioners recourse, the
ratingsprovidedforin[Section17of]RepublicAct8544cannotbeapplied.Accordingtosaidcourt,[t]heapprovalof
theRulesandRegulationsimplementingRepublicAct8544[pursuanttoSection10(l)]andtherequisitesyllabi[under
Section10(k)]areconditionssinequanonfortheapplicationofSection17.Astheseconditionswerenotsatisfiedat
thetimepetitionerstooktheexamination,theycannotbedeemedtohavepassedthesame.
TheflawinboththerulingsoftheBoardofMarineDeckOfficersandtheCourtofAppealsisthattheyapplythe
passing rating decreed by P.D. No. 97 even when the latter had already lost its effectivity, having been expressly
repealedbySection38ofR.A.No.8544,thus:

SEC.38.RepealingClause.PresidentialDecreeNo.97,asamended,andallotherlaws,decrees,executiveorders,
rulesandregulationsandotheradministrativeissuancesandpartsthereofwhichareinconsistentwiththeprovisionsof
thisActareherebyrepealed.

Upon the effectivity of the repealing statute, R.A. No. 8544, the repealed statute, P.D. No. 97, in regard to its
operative effect, is considered as if it had never existed. Courts, or administrative agencies for that matter, have no
powertoperpetuatearuleoflawthatthelegislaturehasrepealed.[7]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/nov2001/140920.htm 3/5
3/5/2017 BordallovsProfessionalRegulationsCommission:140920:November19,2001:J.Kapunan:FirstDivision

TheBoardrationalizeditsapplicationofthe75%passingratingunderP.D.No.97onthegroundthatthesyllabi[8]
ofthesubjectshadnotyetbeenprepared,adoptedandissuedandtheimplementingrulesandregulationshadnotbeen
promulgated.TheBoardspredicamentisunderstandable,consideringthatthelawhadjusttakeneffectonMarch25,
1998andtheexaminationwasscheduledtotakeplaceonApril25,26and27,1998.Itwouldappeartous,however,
that the solution was to postpone the examination rather than to apply a law that had already been rendered non
existent.[9]
NeitheristhereanythinginSection33(2),R.A.No.8544thatjustifiestheBoardsaction.Saidprovisionsimply
reads:

SEC.33.TransitoryProvision.

(1)xxx

(2)ThepresentBoardsshallcontinuetofunctionintheinterimuntilsuchtimeasthenewBoardshallbedulyconstituted
pursuanttothisAct.

ItdoesnotprovideforthecontinuedapplicationofSection9,P.D.No.97pendingtheBoardsadoptionofthenew
syllabiandtherulesandregulations.
ItmaybetruethatR.A.No.8544,initsintenttoraisethestandardsofthemarineprofession,prescribesascope
ofexaminationdifferentfromthatprovidedforunderP.D.No.97anditsimplementingrules.Itmayalsobetruethatthe
syllabiandthesubsequentexaminationonApril2527,1998donotconformtothestandardslaiddownbythenewlaw
anditsownimplementingrules.Theexaminees,however,hadarighttoassumethatrespondentshadperformedtheir
functions in accordance with the applicable law and they should not be prejudiced by the agencies mistakes in its
implementation.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGIVENDUECOURSEandisGRANTED.Petitionersareheldtobequalifiedas
havingpassedtheBoardExaminationforMarineDeckOfficersconductedonApril2527,1998.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),Puno,Pardo,andYnaresSantiago,JJ.,concur.

[1]UnderSection39ofthelaw,theActshalltakeeffectafterfifteendaysfollowingitspublicationintheOfficialGazetteorinanymajor
newspaperofgeneralcirculation,whichevercomesearlier.PublicationintheMalayatookplaceonMarch9,1998whilepublicationin
theOfficialGazettewasonJuly3,1998.
[2]RepublicActNo.8544,Section3(a).

[3]94O.G.No.2,July13,1998,p.4956.ThiswassupersededorrepealedbyaBoardResolutionNo.1,Seriesof1999(95O.G.No.22,
May31,1999,p.3699),whichinturn,wasalsorepealedbyBoardResolutionNo.21,Seriesof1999(95O.G.No.52,December27,1999,
p.9179).
[4]Rollo,pp.5556.

[5]Lopezvs.CityofManila,303SCRA448(1999).

[6]Salinas,Jr.vs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,319SCRA54(1999)Espinavs.CourtofAppeals,294SCRA525(1998).

[7]73AmJur2d,Statutes384.

[8]The syllabi contain the scope of the examination (Section 21, Board Resolution No. 21, Series of 1999).Test questions shall be
strictlywithinthescopeofthesyllabusofthesubject(Section26,Id.Section10(k),R.A.No.8544).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/nov2001/140920.htm 4/5
3/5/2017 BordallovsProfessionalRegulationsCommission:140920:November19,2001:J.Kapunan:FirstDivision
[9]UnderSection8,P.D.No.97,TheBoardofExaminersforMarineOfficersshallconducttwoexaminationsinayear,oneintheCityof
Manila, on the last week of January, and another in Cebu or Iloilo alternately, on the last week of July: Provided,however, That if
conditionswarrant,theBoardmay,uponapprovaloftheOfficeofthePresidentconsiderconductingexaminationinotherplaces.There
isnocorrespondingprovisioninR.A.No.8544,anditappearsthatthelawleavesthismattertotheadministrativeagenciesdiscretion.
TheBoardofMarineDeckOfficerssubsequentlyenactedBoardResolutionNo.21,Seriesof1999(RulesandRegulationsImplementing
RepublicActNo.8544,thePhilippineMerchantMarineOfficersActof1998),Section18ofwhichprovides:
SEC.18.PlacesandDatesofExamination.TheMarineDeckOfficersLicensureExaminationshallbeheldatleastfourtimesayearin
theCityofManilaandinsuchotherplacesadeterminedbytheBoardandapprovedbytheCommission.Theplaces/venuesanddates
ofexaminationsfortheyearshallbeincludedintheScheduleofProfessionalLicensureExaminationsissuedbytheCommission.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/nov2001/140920.htm 5/5