Antolin vs Domondon: Facts:

Petitioner took the accountancy licensure examinations (the Certified Public Accountant [CPA] Board
Exams) conducted by the Board of Accountancy (the Board) in October 1997. The examination results
were released on October 29, 1997; out of 6,481 examinees, only 1,171 passed. Unfortunately,
petitioner did not make it. When the results were released, she received failing grades in four out of the
seven subjects. Subject Petitioner‘s Grade Theory of Accounts 65 % Business Law 66 % Management
Services 69 % Auditing Theory 82 % Auditing Problems 70 % Practical Accounting I 68 % Practical
Accounting II 77 % Convinced that she deserved to pass the examinations, she wrote to respondent
Abelardo T. Domondon (Domondon), Acting Chairman of the Board of Accountancy, and requested that
her answer sheets be re-corrected. On November 3, 1997, petitioner was shown her answer sheets, but
these consisted merely of shaded marks, so she was unable to determine why she failed the exam. Thus,
on November 10, 1997, she again wrote to the Board to request for copies of (a) the questionnaire in
each of the seven subjects (b) her answer sheets; (c) the answer keys to the questionnaires, and (d) an
explanation of the grading system used in each subject (collectively, the Examination Papers). Acting
Chairman Domondon denied petitioner‘s request on two grounds:

first, that Section 36, Article III of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Regulation and Practice of
Professionals, as amended by Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) Resolution No. 332, series of
1994, only permitted access to the petitioner‘s answer sheet (which she had been shown previously),
and that reconsideration of her examination result was only proper under the grounds stated therein:
Sec. 36 An examinee shall be allowed to have access or to go over his/her test papers or answer
sheets on a date not later than thirty (30) days from the official release of the results of the
examination. Within ten (10) days from such date, he/she 45 may file his/her request for
reconsideration of ratings. Reconsideration of rating shall be effected only on grounds of mechanical
error in the grading of his/her test papers or answer sheets, or malfeasance. Second, Acting Chairman
Domondon clarified that the Board was precluded from releasing the Examination Papers (other than
petitioner‘s answer sheet) by Section 20, Article IV of PRC Resolution No. 338, series of 1994, which
provides: Sec. 20. Illegal, Immoral, Dishonorable, Unprofessional Acts – The hereunder acts shall
constitute prejudicial, illegal, grossly immoral, dishonorable, or unprofessional conduct: A. Providing,
getting, receiving, holding, using or reproducing questions x x x x 3. that have been given in the
examination except if the test bank for the subject has on deposit at least two thousand (2,000)
questions.

After a further exchange of correspondence, the Board informed petitioner that an investigation was
conducted into her exam and there was no mechanical error found in the grading of her test papers.
Undeterred, on January 12, 1998, petitioner filed a Petition for Mandamus with Damages against the
Board of Accountancy and its members before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The case was
raffled to Branch 33, and docketed as Civil Case No. 98-86881. The Petition included a prayer for the
issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction ordering the Board of Accountancy and its members
(the respondents) to furnish petitioner with copies of the Examination Papers. Petitioner also prayed
that final judgment be issued ordering respondents to furnish petitioner with all documents and other
materials as would enable her to determine whether respondents fairly administered the
examinations and correctly graded petitioner‘s performance therein, and, if warranted, to issue to her
a certificate of registration as a CPA. On February 5, 1998, respondents filed their Opposition to the
Application for a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, and argued, inter alia, that petitioner was
not entitled to the relief sought, that the respondents did not have the duty to furnish petitioner with
copies of the Examination Papers, and that petitioner had other plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, namely, recourse to the PRC. Respondents also filed their Answer with
Compulsory Counterclaim in the main case, which asked that the Petition for Mandamus with Damages
be dismissed for lack of merit on the following grounds:

(1) petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies;

(2) the petition stated no cause of action because there was no ministerial duty to release the
information demanded; and

(3) the constitutional right to information on matters of public concern is subject to limitations provided
by law, including Section 20, Article IV, of PRC Resolution No. 338, series of 1994.

On March 3, 1998, petitioner filed an Amended Petition (which was admitted by the RTC), where she
included the following allegation in the body of her petition: The allegations in this amended petition are
meant only to plead a cause of action for access to the documents requested, not for re-correction
which petitioner shall assert in the proper forum depending on, among others, whether she finds
sufficient error in the documents to warrant such or any other relief. None of the allegations in this
amended petition, including those in the following paragraphs, is made to assert a cause of action for re-
correction. If only to underscore the fact that she was not asking for a re-checking of her exam, the
following prayer for relief was deleted from the Amended Petition: ―and, if warranted, to issue to her a
certificate of registration as a CPA.‖ On June 23, 1998, respondents filed a Manifestation and Motion to
Dismiss Application for Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, on the ground that petitioner had
taken and passed the May 1998 CPA Licensure Examination and had taken her oath as a CPA. Petitioner
filed her Opposition on July 8, 1998. Subsequently, on October 29, 1998, respondents filed their Answer
with Counterclaim to the amended petition. They reiterated their original allegations and further alleged
that there was no cause of action because at the time the Amended Petition was admitted, they had
ceased to be members of the Board of Accountancy and they were not in possession of the documents
sought by the petitioner.

Issues:

The petitioner argues that she has a right to obtain copies of the examination papers so she can
determine for herself why and how she failed and to ensure that the Board properly performed its
duties. She argues that the Constitution as well as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees support her right to demand access to the Examination Papers. Furthermore,
she claims that there was no need to exhaust administrative remedies, since no recourse to the PRC was
available, and only a pure question of law is involved in this case. Finally, she claims that her demand for
access to documents was not rendered moot by her passing of the 1998 CPA Board Exams.

Held:

At the very outset let us be clear of our ruling. Any claim for re-correction or revision of her 1997
examination cannot be compelled by mandamus. This much was made evident by our ruling in Agustin-
Ramos v. Sandoval, where we stated: After deliberating on the petition in relation to the other pleadings
filed in the proceedings at bar, the Court resolved to DENY said petition for lack of merit. The petition at
bar prays for the setting aside of the Order of respondent Judge dismissing petitioners‘ mandamus
action to compel the other respondents (Medical Board of Examiners and the Professional Regulation
Commission) ―to reconsider, recorrect and/or rectify the board ratings of the petitioners from their
present failing grades to higher or passing marks.

The function of reviewing and re-assessing the petitioners‘ answers to the examination questions, in the
light of the facts and arguments presented by them x x x is a discretionary function of the Medical
Board, not a ministerial and mandatory one, hence, not within the scope of the writ of mandamus. The
obvious remedy of the petitioners from the adverse judgment by the Medical Board of Examiners was
an appeal to the Professional Regulation Commission itself, and thence to the Court of Appeals. We now
turn to the question of whether the petition has become moot in view of petitioner‘s having passed the
1998 CPA examination. An issue becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable
controversy, so that a declaration on the issue would be of no practical use or value. In this jurisdiction,
any citizen may challenge any attempt to obstruct the exercise of his or her right to information and may
seek its enforcement by mandamus. And since every citizen possesses the inherent right to be informed
by the mere fact of citizenship, we find that petitioner‘s belated passing of the CPA Board Exams does
not automatically mean that her interest in the Examination Papers has become mere superfluity.
Undoubtedly, the constitutional question presented, in view of the likelihood that the issues in this case
will be repeated, warrants review. The crux of this case is whether petitioner may compel access to the
Examination Documents through mandamus. As always, our inquiry must begin with the Constitution.
Section 7, Article III provides: Sec.7. The right of the people to information on matters of public
concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well to government research data used as basis for policy
development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
Together with the guarantee of the right to information, Section 28, Article II promotes full disclosure
and transparency in government, viz: Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the
State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public
interest. Like all the constitutional guarantees, the right to information is not absolute. The people's
right to information is limited to "matters of public concern," and is further "subject to such limitations
as may be provided by law." Similarly, the State's policy of full disclosure is limited to "transactions
involving public interest," and is "subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law". The Court has
always grappled with the meanings of the terms "public interest" and "public concern." As observed in
Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission: In determining whether x x x a particular information is of public
concern there is no rigid test which can be applied. "Public concern" like "public interest" is a term that
eludes exact definition. Both terms embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the public may want to
know, either because these directly affect their lives, or simply because such matters naturally arouse
the interest of an ordinary citizen. In the final analysis, it is for the courts to determine on a case by case
basis whether the matter at issue is of interest or importance, as it relates to or affects the public. We
have also recognized the need to preserve a measure of confidentiality on some matters, such as
national security, trade secrets and banking transactions, criminal matters, and other confidential
matters. We are prepared to concede that national board examinations such as the CPA Board Exams
are matters of public concern. The populace in general, and the examinees in particular, would
understandably be interested in the fair and competent administration of these exams in order to
ensure that only those qualified are admitted into the accounting profession. And as with all matters
pedagogical, these examinations could be not merely quantitative means of assessment, but also means
to further improve the teaching and learning of the art and science of accounting. On the other hand,
we do realize that there may be valid reasons to limit access to the Examination Papers in order to
properly administer the exam. More than the mere convenience of the examiner, it may well be that
there exist inherent difficulties in the preparation, generation, encoding, administration, and checking of
these multiple choice exams that require that the questions and answers remain confidential for a
limited duration. However, the PRC is not a party to these proceedings. They have not been given an
opportunity to explain the reasons behind their regulations or articulate the justification for keeping the
Examination Documents confidential. In view of the far-reaching implications of this case, which may
impact on every board examination administered by the PRC, and in order that all relevant issues may
be ventilated, we deem it best to remand these cases to the RTC for further proceedings