ARMANDO G. PUASAN, PETITIONER, VS. BOARD OF MARINE DECK OFFICER, PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION AND JULISAR S. ALMENDROS, RESPONDENTS.
GALAPATE-LAGUILLES, J:
The following are the factual antecedents:
Private respondent Julisar S. Almendros (private respondent) was the complainant[3] in Administrative Case No. 1288 for Unprofessional and/or Dishonorable Conduct filed before public respondent Professional Regulatory Commission Board of Marine Deck Officers (respondent PRC Board). Petitioner Armando G. Puasan (petitioner), on the other hand, was the respondent therein.
On April 12, 2012, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss[4] the administrative case on the ground that respondent PRC Board is bereft of jurisdiction as the circumstances alleged by private respondent in his complaint happened in Japan.[5]
On September 18, 2012, the aforementioned case was set for Pre-Trial Conference. However, petitioner failed to appear despite due notification. Consequently, respondent PRC Board issued an Order[6] on the same day allowing the ex-parte presentation of private respondent’s evidence, thus:
“In view of the failure of the respondent to appear before this Board in the scheduled Pre-Trial Conference, this Board hereby grants the Motion of the Complainant to present evidence ex-parte,
Let this case be set for hearing on 10 DEC 2012 at 1:30 pm for the presentation of the Complainant’s Evidence.
SO ORDERED.”
Aggrieved, petitioner sought reconsideration. In his Motion for Reconsideration,[7] petitioner reiterated that respondent PRC Board is devoid of jurisdiction over the subject matter as the complained untoward incident involving him occurred in Japan while on board M/V Yuso Cherry.[8] Further, he argued that respondent PRC Board erred when it proceeded to set the case for pre-trial notwithstanding the pendency of his Motion to Dismiss.[9]
The said Motion for Reconsideration was thereafter resolved in an Order[10] dated November 13, 2012 in this wise, to wit:
“Before the Board is the motion of respondent praying for the reconsideration of Our Order dated September 18, 2012, the dispositive portion is hereby stated to wit:
‘In view of the failure of the respondent to appear before this Board in the scheduled Pre-Trial Conference, this Board hereby grants the Motion of Complainant to present evidence ex-parte.’
The respondent alleged that he filed a motion to dismiss in view of the fact that the acts alleged to have been committed happened on Board the ship while in Japan. Thus, this Board allegedly has no jurisdiction.
The respondent’s arguments deserve scant consideration of this Board. The respondent likened the jurisdiction of this Board to criminal jurisdiction which applies the territorial principle. It must be stressed that the jurisdiction of this Commission applies to all professional enumerated therein wherever he/she may be. The power to regulate attaches to the person of the professional. No limitation by territory was set forth in the said law.
The failure of the respondent to appear in the Pre-Trial Conference may be considered fatal considering that they already submitted their pre-trial brief. Further, it is more prudent to attend a hearing scheduled by the Board rather than pre-empt the decision of this Board as to the Motion to Dismiss. The setting of this case for pre-trial conference amounts to an Order of this Board which every party is required to comply.
Nonetheless, the Board is inclined to reconsider the Order dated September 18, 2012, not for the reasons cited by the respondent, but for the greater principle of giving each party utmost opportunity to be heard. An ex-parte proceeding should only be allowed when a party clearly showed his/her waiver of his presence and his/her right to present evidence. The circumstances of the case clearly show that the respondent does not intend to waive his rights.
On the other hand, the respondent is sternly warned that a repetition of the above conduct shall not be tolerated.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Board hereby resolves as follows:
- To set aside the Order dated September 18, 2012;
- To set this case for Pre-Trial Conference on February 1, 2013 at 1:30.
SO ORDERED.”
Hence, the present recourse raising the following issues[11] for resolution, viz:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE PRC BOARD HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE SCHEDULED FEBRUARY 1, 2013 PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE OR SUBSEQUENTLY THEREAFTER (sic) BE HELD IN ABEYANCE UNTIL FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE PETITION QUESTIONING THE JURISDICTION OF THE PRC BOARD.
The core issue to be resolved in this Petition is whether or not respondent PRC Board acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the challenged ruling.
The Petition must fail.
Prefatorily, there is an obvious failure on the part of the petitioner to exhaust all administrative remedies available to him. Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the courts, he or she should have availed himself or herself of all the means of administrative processes afforded him or her.[12] Hence, if resort to a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be made by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his or her jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before the court’s judicial power can be sought. The thrust of the rule is that courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence.[13]
Pursuant to Section 1[14], Article IV of the PRC Resolution No. 06-342 (A) Series of 2006, otherwise known as “New Rules of Procedure in Administrative Investigations in the Professional Regulation Commission and the Professional Regulatory Boards” (PRC Resolution for brevity) and Section 10[15] of Republic Act No. 8544 otherwise known as “The Philippine Merchant Marine Officers Act of 1998” (R.A. 8544), a party aggrieved by the decision, order or resolution may file a notice of appeal from the decision, order or resolution of the Board to the Commission within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof. Thenceforth, the decision of the Commission may be appealed to the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Rules of Court.[16] Here, petitioner immediately filed the instant Petition for Certiorari with this Court without first elevating his case to the Commission. This is a procedural faux pas for which warrants the dismissal of the herein Petition.
But even if We set aside the foregoing procedural blunder, the Petition still cannot prosper as hereinafter discussed.
Petitioner’s vigorous insistence that respondent PRC Board is devoid of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case as the alleged demonstration of unprofessional and dishonorable conduct transpired in Japan which is outside the Philippine territory is unmeritorious.
The authority to hear and decide administrative cases by the respondent PRC Board comes from Republic Act No. 8981, otherwise known as “The PRC Modernization Act of 2000”, R.A. 8544, and Sections 2[17] and 13[18] of the aforementioned PRC Resolution. It is intended primarily to determine the moral and technical fitness of a person to be admitted in the profession or to continue to practice his profession.[19] The Commission is vested with power to regulate the conduct of professionals registered with it (Commission) provided what is involved is the moral and mental fitness of the person concerned. And, provided further the procedure laid down in Section 6[20] of the same resolution has been faithfully complied with. This is in consonance with the avowed policy of the State to produce world-class professionals by enhancing and maintaining high professional, occupational, and ethical standards.[21]
Admittedly, petitioner is a registered Chief Mate Officer and licensed Master Captain.[22] The fact that the act complained of occured outside the Philippines is immaterial. What is significant, nay vital, is the petitioner’s registration with the Commission. In addition, petitioner’s violation of the Code of Ethics of Professional Maritime Officers was put into issue in the case below which is undeniably under the jurisdiction of the respondent Board as explicity provided under said Section 10[23] of R.A. 8544. For, it irrefragably involves the ascertainment of his moral fitness to continue practicing his profession.
The foregoing considered, respondent PRC Board did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
[*] Lantion, J. A., C., (Chairperson) and Lazaro-Javier, A. C., JJ., cocnur.
[*] Vice Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo per Office Order No. 122-14-ABR dated April 1, 2014
[1] Dated January 28, 2013; Rollo, pp. 3-16.
[2] Ibid, pp. 18-19.
[3] Complaint dated November 19, 2011; Rollo, pp. 22-24.
[4] Dated April 11, 2012; Ibid, pp. 27-31.
[5] Id., p. 28.
[6] Id., p. 21.
[7] Dated October 17, 2012; Rollo, pp. 32-41.
[8] Ibid, pp. 33-35.
[9] Id., p. 36.
[10] Supra at note 2.
[11] Rollo, pp. 10-11.
[12] Public Hearing Committee of the Laguna Lake Development Authority, etc. vs. SM Prime Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 170599, September 22, 2010.
[13] Universal Robina Corp. (Corn Division) vs. Laguna Lake Development Authority, G.R. No. 191427, May 30, 2011.
[14] Section 1, Article IV of PRC Resolution No. 06-342 (A) Series of 2006
Sec. 1. Appeal; Period Non-Extendible.- the decision, order or resolution of the Board shall be final and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of the decision, order or resolution without an appeal being perfected or taken by either the respondent or the complainant. A party aggrieved by the decision, order or resolution may file a notice of appeal from the decision, order or resolution of the Board to the Commission within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof, and serving upon the adverse party a notice of appeal together with the appellant’s brief or memorandum on appeal, and paying the appeal and legal research fess. Failure to serve upon the adverse party the notice of appeal and the appellant’s brief shall be a ground for the dismissal of the appeal.
The filing of a motion for reconsideration suspends the running of the reglementary period of fifteen (15) days to appeal. The running of the appeal period resumes from the date the appellant receives an order from the Board denying his motion for reconsideration.
The period for perfecting the appeal shall be non-extendible.
[15] Section 10 of R.A. 8544
Section 10. Powers and Duties of the Boards. – The Boards shall exercise the following powers and duties:
(a) To promulgate and adopt the rules and regulations necessary for carrying out the provisions of this Act;
(b) To supervise and regulate the registration, certification of competency and practice of the Maritime Profession in the Philippines;
(c) To issue certificates of competency and its corresponding endorsement in accordance with STCW ’78 standards
(d) To administer oaths in connection with the administration of this Act;
(e) To suspend, revoke or reinstate the Certificate of Competency for the practice of the Maritime Profession;
(f) To adopt an official seal of the Board;
(g) To look into the conditions affecting the practice of the Maritime Profession and whenever necessary, adopt such measures as may be deemed proper for the enhancement and maintenance of high professional and ethical standards of the profession;
(h) To prescribe and/or adopt a Code of Ethical and Professional Standards for the practice of the Maritime Profession
(i) To hear and try administrative cases involving violations of this Act, its Implementing Rules and Regulations, the Code of Ethics for Professional Maritime Officers and for this purpose, to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum to secure the appearance of witnesses and the production of documents in connection therewith;
(j) To prescribe guidelines for the Continuing Professional Education (CPE) program in coordination with the accredited and integrated association of Merchant Marine Officers;
(k) In accordance with the STCW ’78 Convention and its amendments, to prepare, adopt and issue the syllabi of the subjects for examinations by determining and preparing the questions which shall strictly be within the scope of the syllabus of the subjects for examination;
(l) To promulgate, administer and enforce rules and regulations necessary for carrying out the provisions of this Act, in accordance with the charter of the Professional Regulation Commission and the STCW ’78 Convention, as amended: Provided, That in case of subsequent or future amendments to any international convention(s)/conference of which the Philippines is a signatory, the Board is empowered to amend/revise its rules and regulations to conform with the amendments of the said convention(s) without the need of amending this enabling Act;
(m) To approve, issue, limit or revoke the special dispensation to practice the Maritime Profession;
(n) To discharge such other powers and functions as the Board may deem necessary for the practice of the profession and the upgrading, enhancement, development and growth of merchant marine profession in the Philippines.
The policies, resolutions, rules and regulations, issued or promulgated by the Board shall be subject to the review and approval of the Commission. The decisions, resolutions or orders rendered by the Board shall be final and executory unless appealed to the Commission within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the decision. (boldness and underscoring supplied)
[16] Section 11, Article IV of PRC Resolution No. 06-342 (A) Series of 2006
Sec. 11. Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals.- A party may appeal the decision of the Commission to the Court of Appeals by way of petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
In the event the decision or the resolution of the Commission is elevated to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, the records of the case shall be forwarded by the Commission to the appellate court as and when required. However, in case the records of the case have been placed at the archives, the Legal Division shall be responsible for transmitting the records to the appellate court.
[17] Section 2 of PRC Resolution No. 06-342 (A) Series of 2006
Sec. 2. Scope.- These Rules are issued in the exercise of the quasi-judicial powers and functions of the Commission and the Boards pursuant to Republic Act No. 8981, and the laws regulating the various professions in relations to cases filed against the examinees in the licensure examinations, professionals registered with the Commission, holders of temporary or special permits issued by the Commission upon recommendation by the Board concerned, and the members of the Board.
[18] Section 13 of the PRC Resolution No. 06-342 (A) Series of 2006
Sec. 13. Cases Covered.- The administrative investigations shall include but shall not be limited to the following grounds:
- Immoral or dishonorable conduct;
- Unprofessional or unethical conduct;
- Insanity;
- Conviction of a criminal offense involving moral turpitude;
- Gross negligence or incompetence in the practice of profession;
- Use or perpetration of fraud or deceit in the acquisition of Certificate of Registration/Professional License, Temporary or Special Permit, Professional Identification Card (PRC ID) Card, STCW Certificate of Competency and Endorsement Certificate;
- Violations of any of the provisions of Republic Act No. 8981, the laws regulating the various professions, their implementing rules and regulations and their codes of ethics;
- Neglect of duty;
- Commission of irregularities in the licensure examinations which taint or impugn the integrity of the examinations, or violation of any rule or regulation governing such examination;
- Such other cause or causes as may be provided by law.
[19] Section 4 of PRC Resolution No. 06-342 (A) Series of 2006
Sec. 4. Nature of Action.- The administrative investigations shall be fact-finding and summary in nature, without prejudice, however, to the due process of law, and intended primarily to determine if the respondent is morally and technically qualified to be admitted to his profession, to practice or to continue to practice his profession, or to continue to be a member of the Board.
[20] Section 6 of PRC Resolution No. 06-342 (A) Series of 2006
Sec. 6. Jurisdiction.- Service of summons with a copy of the formal charge or complaint shall vest the Commission or the Board with jurisdiction over the person of the respondent and the power to hear and decide the case even if he subsequently leaves the Philippines or fails to appear during the hearing of the case.
[21] Section 2 of R.A. No, 8981
Section 2. Statement of Policy – The State recognizes the important role of professionals in nation-building and, towards this end, promotes the sustained development of a reservoir of professionals whose competence has been determined by honest and credible licensure examinations and whose standards of professional service and practice are internationally recognized and considered world-class brought about the regulatory measures, programs and activities that foster professional growth and advancement.
[22] Rollo, p. 4.
[23] Supra at note 14.