G.R. No. L-77372 - APRIL 1988 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-77372April 29, 1988Lupo L. Lupangco vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-82380April 29, 1988Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. vs. J. Ignacio M. Capulong G.R. No. L-26306April 27, 1988Gregorio Ventura vs. Gregoria Ventura G.R. No. L-41132April 27, 1988Victorino Hernandez vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-46684April 27, 1988Rosalina G. Navalta vs. Government Service Insurance System G.R. No. L-49982April 27, 1988Eligio Estanislao, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-65192April 27, 1988Rodolfo Dela Cruz vs. Felix L. Moya G.R. Nos. L-79690-707April 27, 1988Enrique A. Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. L-54357April 25, 1988Reynaldo Pasco vs. Cfi of Bulacan, Branch V, et al. G.R. No. L-58797April 25, 1988Antonio Quirino vs. Hon. Nathaniel M. Grospe, et al. G.R. No. L-64507April 25, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Nestor Ganduma G.R. Nos. L-41182-3April 16, 1988Dr. Carlos L. Sevilla vs. Court of Appeals A.C. No. 3135April 15, 1988Miguel Cuenco vs. Marcelo B. Fernan A.M. No. 88-4-5433April 15, 1988In Re First Indorsement From Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez G.R. No. L-37400April 15,1988People of the Philippines vs. Sabangan Cabato G.R. No. L-28409April 15, 1988Higina Alba vs. Daniel Santander G.R. No. L-37206April 15, 1988Philippine American Management Employees Association vs. Court of Industrial Relations G.R. No. L-57650April 15, 1988Catalino Y. Tinga vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-58870April 15, 1988Cebu Institute of Technology (CIT) vs. Blas Ople, et al. G.R. No. L-70999April 15, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Federico Espina G.R. No. L-71712April 15, 1988Honorato Malig, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al. G.R. No. L-72564April 15, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Anita B. Claudio G.R. No. L-75044April 15, 1988Japan Air Lines vs. Minister of Labor and Employment G.R. No. L-75069April 15, 1988Erlinda O. Cabrera vs. Victoriana E. Villanueva G.R. No. L-75983April 15, 1988Manuel R. Cruz vs. Juan Ponce Enrile G.R. No. L-76141April 15, 1988Anacleto Bernabe, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. L-77279April 15, 1988Manuela S. Catan vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-77422April 15, 1988Liwayway Publishing, Inc., et al. vs. Presidential Comm. on Good Government, et al. G.R. No. L-77685April 15, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Nestor Enciso G.R. No. L-78178April 15, 1988Delia Bailon-Casilao vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-78189April 15, 1988Daluma Anggay vs. Francisco L. Abalos G.R. No. L-78946April 15, 1988Nenita Palma-Fernandez vs. Adriano De La Paz G.R. No. L-81550April 15, 1988Cesar A. Cereno vs. Luis D. Dictado G.R. No. L-82001April 15, 1988Juanito Pajaro vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. L-45390April 15, 1988Hermenegildo Belen vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-29171April 15, 1988Ind. Power Sales, Inc., vs. Duma Sinsuat G.R. No. L-29749April 15, 1988Placida Peza vs. Federico C. Alikpala G.R. No. L-30036April 15, 1988Marcos Bordas vs. Senceno Canadalla G.R. No. L-30796April 15, 1988Silveriano Antiporda vs. Reinerio J. Ticao G.R. No. L-31390April 15, 1988Free Telephone Workers Union vs. Philippines Long Distance Telephone G.R. No. L-32243April 15, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Eugenio Crisostomo G.R. No. L-32596April 15, 1988Integrated Construction Services, Inc. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-33237April 15, 1988Gregorio T. Crespo vs. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, et al. G.R. Nos. L-35697-99April 15, 1988Eladia De Lima, et al. vs. Laguna Tayabas Company, et al. G.R. No. L-35767April 15, 1988Raymundo A. Crystal vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-36626April 15, 1988Andres De La Merced vs. Teodoro De Guzman G.R. No. L-37933April 15, 1988Celso M. Gimenez vs. Ramon E. Nazareno G.R. No. L-37974April 15, 1988Far East Realty Investment, Inc., vs. Court of Industrial Relations G.R. No. L-38538April 15, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Andres A. Manglallan G.R. No. L-39136April 15, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Malazzab G.R. No. L-40307April 15, 1988Filoil Marketing Corporation vs. Dy Pac & Company, Inc. G.R. No. L-40953April 15, 1988Lourdes Lukban-Ang vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-40988April 15, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Arcito Magdaraog G.R. No. L-41278April 15, 1988Director of Lands vs. Pedro T. Santiago, et al. G.R. No. L-41462April 15, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Remy Diño G.R. No. L-42230April 15, 1988Lauro Immaculata vs. Pedro C. Navarro G.R. No. L-43938April 15, 1988Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-44338April 15, 1988Rosario C. Buccat vs. Librada Rosales Dispo G.R. No. L-44461April 15, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Ceferino Manuel, et al. G.R. No. L-44649April 15, 1988Daylinda A. Lagua, et al. vs. Vicente N. Cusi, Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-44932April 15, 1988Jose Carandang vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-45063April 15, 1988Eduardo S. San Juan vs. Nieves Rallos Cuento G.R. No. L-45144April 15, 1988City Government of Toledo City vs. Hon. Pio Fernandos G.R. No. L-46102April 15, 1988Benjamin Segovia vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-46934April 15, 1988Alfredo T. Cuyos vs. Hon. Nicolas P. Garcia G.R. No. L-47270April 15, 1988Ernesto Doria vs. Hon. Artemon D. Luna G.R. No. L-47745April 15, 1988Jose S. Amadora vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-47851April 15, 1988Juan F. Nakpil, et al. vs. the Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-48068April 15, 1988Emilio J. Gonzales vs. Eusebio M. Lopez G.R. No. L-48335April 15, 1988Juan Aguila vs. Court of First Instance of Batangas G.R. No. L-48697April 15, 1988Francisca Dela Cruz vs. Filomena Dela Cruz G.R. No. L-48949April 15, 1988Jose M. Lontoc vs. Md Transit & Taxi Company, Inc. G.R. No. L-49008April 15, 1988Federico H. Tolentino vs. Hon. Ricardo D. Galano G.R. No. L-49219April 15, 1988Concepcion Fernandez Del Campo vs. Bernarda Fernandez Abesia G.R. No. L-49281April 15, 1988Amorante Plan vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-49299April 15, 1988Nora Contado vs. Rufilo L. Tan G.R. No. L-50096April 15, 1988Kerima Polotan-Tuvera vs. Hon. Abelardo M. Dayrit G.R. Nos. L-53208-53333April 15, 1988Angelina Escano vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. L-53642April 15, 1988Leonilo C. Donato vs. J. Artemon D. Luna, et al. G.R. No. L-54598April 15, 1988Jose B. Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. L-56741-42April 15, 1988Aurora Mejia vs. Hon. Manuel Pamaran, et al. G.R. No. L-57469April 15, 1988Guevara Realty, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-58404April 15, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Marcelino Bulosan G.R. No. L-65175April 15, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Marcelino L. Guarnes G.R. No. L-65674April 15, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Danilo B. Capulong G.R. Nos. L-65882-84April 15, 1988National Power Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-66646April 15, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Ronie A. Caboverde G.R. No. L-66838April 15, 1988Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Procter & Gamble Philippines Mfg. Corporation G.R. No. L-66890April 15, 1988Herminio Flores vs. Funeraria Nuestro G.R. No. L-68375April 15, 1988Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Wander Philippines Inc. G.R. No. L-68733April 15, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Ruel Melicor G.R. No. L-69866April 15, 1988Rogelio Aberca, et al. vs. Maj. Gen. F Abian Ver, et al. G.R. No. L-72878April 15, 1988Almendras Mining Corporation vs. Office of the Insurance Commission G.R. Nos. L-61079-81April 15, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Maria Loren Quizada G.R. No. L-71782April 14, 1988Hadji Ibrahim Solay Pangandaman, et al, vs. Dimaporo T. Casar, et al, G.R. No. L-74669April 14, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Diapar Quima G.R. No. L-34973April 14, 1988Yung Uan Chu vs. Republic. of the Philippines G.R. No. L-72566April 12, 1988Delbros Hotel Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-77663April 12, 1988Presidential Commission on Good Government vs. Emmanuel G. Peña G.R. No. L-78592April 8, 1988Municipality of Malolos vs. Libangang Malolos, Inc. G.R. No. L-29674April 8, 1988Cua Sun Ke vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-31920April 8, 1988Limpan Investment Corporation vs. Lim Sy G.R. No. L-42087April 8, 1988Ursula Vda. De Clemente. et al. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-45484April 8, 1988Zosimo Capacio vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-55730April 8, 1988Bernardo Patagan, et al. vs. Domingo D. Panis, et al. G.R. No. L-58822April 8, 1988Republic of the Philippines vs. Angel G. Sangalang, et al. G.R. No. L-69377April 8, 1988People of the Philippines vs. Alexander Albofera, et al. G.R. No. L-78926April 6, 1988In Re: Ponciano B. Jacinto The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Lupo L. Lupangco vs. Court of AppealsAyer Productions Pty. Ltd. vs. J. Ignacio M. CapulongGregorio Ventura vs. Gregoria VenturaVictorino Hernandez vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.Rosalina G. Navalta vs. Government Service Insurance SystemEligio Estanislao, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Rodolfo Dela Cruz vs. Felix L. MoyaEnrique A. Zaldivar vs. SandiganbayanReynaldo Pasco vs. Cfi of Bulacan, Branch V, et al.Antonio Quirino vs. Hon. Nathaniel M. Grospe, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Nestor GandumaDr. Carlos L. Sevilla vs. Court of AppealsMiguel Cuenco vs. Marcelo B. FernanIn Re First Indorsement From Hon. Raul M. GonzalezPeople of the Philippines vs. Sabangan CabatoHigina Alba vs. Daniel SantanderPhilippine American Management Employees Association vs. Court of Industrial RelationsCatalino Y. Tinga vs. People of the PhilippinesCebu Institute of Technology (CIT) vs. Blas Ople, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Federico EspinaHonorato Malig, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Anita B. ClaudioJapan Air Lines vs. Minister of Labor and EmploymentErlinda O. Cabrera vs. Victoriana E. VillanuevaManuel R. Cruz vs. Juan Ponce EnrileAnacleto Bernabe, et al. vs. SandiganbayanManuela S. Catan vs. National Labor Relations CommissionLiwayway Publishing, Inc., et al. vs. Presidential Comm. on Good Government, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Nestor EncisoDelia Bailon-Casilao vs. Court of AppealsDaluma Anggay vs. Francisco L. AbalosNenita Palma-Fernandez vs. Adriano De La PazCesar A. Cereno vs. Luis D. DictadoJuanito Pajaro vs. SandiganbayanHermenegildo Belen vs. Court of AppealsInd. Power Sales, Inc., vs. Duma SinsuatPlacida Peza vs. Federico C. AlikpalaMarcos Bordas vs. Senceno CanadallaSilveriano Antiporda vs. Reinerio J. TicaoFree Telephone Workers Union vs. Philippines Long Distance TelephonePeople of the Philippines vs. Eugenio CrisostomoIntegrated Construction Services, Inc. vs. Workmen's Compensation CommissionGregorio T. Crespo vs. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, et al.Eladia De Lima, et al. vs. Laguna Tayabas Company, et al.Raymundo A. Crystal vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Andres De La Merced vs. Teodoro De GuzmanCelso M. Gimenez vs. Ramon E. NazarenoFar East Realty Investment, Inc., vs. Court of Industrial RelationsPeople of the Philippines vs. Andres A. ManglallanPeople of the Philippines vs. Pedro MalazzabFiloil Marketing Corporation vs. Dy Pac & Company, Inc.Lourdes Lukban-Ang vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Arcito MagdaraogDirector of Lands vs. Pedro T. Santiago, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Remy DiñoLauro Immaculata vs. Pedro C. NavarroRepublic of the Philippines vs. Court of AppealsRosario C. Buccat vs. Librada Rosales DispoPeople of the Philippines vs. Ceferino Manuel, et al.Daylinda A. Lagua, et al. vs. Vicente N. Cusi, Jr., et al.Jose Carandang vs. Court of AppealsEduardo S. San Juan vs. Nieves Rallos CuentoCity Government of Toledo City vs. Hon. Pio FernandosBenjamin Segovia vs. Republic of the PhilippinesAlfredo T. Cuyos vs. Hon. Nicolas P. GarciaErnesto Doria vs. Hon. Artemon D. LunaJose S. Amadora vs. Court of AppealsJuan F. Nakpil, et al. vs. the Court of Appeals, et al.Emilio J. Gonzales vs. Eusebio M. LopezJuan Aguila vs. Court of First Instance of BatangasFrancisca Dela Cruz vs. Filomena Dela CruzJose M. Lontoc vs. Md Transit & Taxi Company, Inc.Federico H. Tolentino vs. Hon. Ricardo D. GalanoConcepcion Fernandez Del Campo vs. Bernarda Fernandez AbesiaAmorante Plan vs. Court of AppealsNora Contado vs. Rufilo L. TanKerima Polotan-Tuvera vs. Hon. Abelardo M. DayritAngelina Escano vs. SandiganbayanLeonilo C. Donato vs. J. Artemon D. Luna, et al.Jose B. Ledesma vs. Court of AppealsAurora Mejia vs. Hon. Manuel Pamaran, et al.Guevara Realty, Inc. vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Marcelino BulosanPeople of the Philippines vs. Marcelino L. GuarnesPeople of the Philippines vs. Danilo B. CapulongNational Power Corporation vs. National Labor Relations CommissionPeople of the Philippines vs. Ronie A. CaboverdeCommissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Procter & Gamble Philippines Mfg. CorporationHerminio Flores vs. Funeraria NuestroCommissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Wander Philippines Inc.People of the Philippines vs. Ruel MelicorRogelio Aberca, et al. vs. Maj. Gen. F Abian Ver, et al.Almendras Mining Corporation vs. Office of the Insurance CommissionPeople of the Philippines vs. Maria Loren QuizadaHadji Ibrahim Solay Pangandaman, et al, vs. Dimaporo T. Casar, et al,People of the Philippines vs. Diapar QuimaYung Uan Chu vs. Republic. of the PhilippinesDelbros Hotel Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPresidential Commission on Good Government vs. Emmanuel G. PeñaMunicipality of Malolos vs. Libangang Malolos, Inc.Cua Sun Ke vs. Republic of the PhilippinesLimpan Investment Corporation vs. Lim SyUrsula Vda. De Clemente. et al. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al.Zosimo Capacio vs. Republic of the PhilippinesBernardo Patagan, et al. vs. Domingo D. Panis, et al.Republic of the Philippines vs. Angel G. Sangalang, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Alexander Albofera, et al.In Re: Ponciano B. JacintoThe Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-77372 April 29, 1988

LUPO L. LUPANGCO, RAYMOND S. MANGKAL, NORMAN A. MESINA, ALEXANDER R. REGUYAL, JOCELYN P. CATAPANG, ENRICO V. REGALADO, JEROME O. ARCEGA, ERNESTOC. BLAS, JR., ELPEDIO M. ALMAZAN, KARL CAESAR R. RIMANDO,petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION,respondent.

Balgos & Perez Law Offices for petitioners.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

GANCAYCO,J.:

Is the Regional Trial Court of the same category as the Professional Regulation Commission so that it cannot pass upon the validity of the administrative acts of the latter? Can this Commission lawfully prohibit the examiness from attending review classes, receiving handout materials, tips, or the like three (3) days before the date of the examination? Theses are the issues presented to the court by this petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals promulagated on January 13, 1987, in CA-G.R. SP No. 10598,*declaring null and void the other dated Ocober 21, 1986 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 32 in Civil Case No. 86-37950 entitled " Lupo L. Lupangco, et al. vs. Professional Regulation Commission."

The records shows the following undisputed facts:

On or about October 6, 1986, herein respondent Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) issued Resolution No. 105 as parts of its "Additional Instructions to Examiness," to all those applying for admission to take the licensure examinations in accountancy. The resolution embodied the following pertinent provisions:

On October 16, 1986, herein petitioners, all reviewees preparing to take the licensure examinations in accountancy schedule on October 25 and November 2 of the same year, filed on their own behalf of all others similarly situated like them, with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XXXII, a complaint for injuction with a prayer with the issuance of a writ of a preliminary injunction against respondent PRC to restrain the latter from enforcing the above-mentioned resolution and to declare the same unconstitution.

Respondent PRC filed a motion to dismiss on October 21, 1987 on the ground that the lower court had no jurisdiction to review and to enjoin the enforcement of its resolution. In an Order of October 21, 1987, the lower court declared that it had jurisdiction to try the case and enjoined the respondent commission from enforcing and giving effect to Resolution No. 105 which it found to be unconstitutional.

Not satisfied therewith, respondent PRC, on November 10, 1986, filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for the nullification of the above Order of the lower court.ℒαwρhi৷Said petiton was granted in the Decision of the Court of Appeals promulagated on January 13, 1987, to wit:

Hence, this petition.

The Court of Appeals, in deciding that the Regional Trial Court of Manila had no jurisdiction to entertain the case and to enjoin the enforcement of the Resolution No. 105, stated as its basis its conclusion that the Professional Regulation Commission and the Regional Trial Court are co-equal bodies. Thus it held —

To strenghten its position, the Court of Appeals relied heavily onNational Electrification Administration vs. Mendoza,4which cites Pineda vs. Lantin5and Philippine Pacific Fishing, Inc. vs. Luna,6where this Court held that a Court of First Instance cannot interfere with the orders of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the two being co-equal bodies.

After a close scrutiny of the facts and the record of this case,

We rule in favor of the petitioner.

The cases cited by respondent court are not in point. It is glaringly apparent that the reason why this Court ruled that the Court of First Instance could not interfere with the orders of the Securities and Exchange Commission was that this was so provided for by the law. InPineda vs. Lantin,We explained that whenever a party is aggrieved by or disagree with an order or ruling of the Securities and Exchange Commission, he cannot seek relief from courts of general jurisdiction since under the Rules of Court and Commonwealth Act No. 83, as amended by Republic Act No. 635, creating and setting forth the powers and functions of the old Securities and Exchange Commission, his remedy is to go the Supreme Court on a petition for review. Likewise, inPhilippine Pacific Fishing Co., Inc. vs. Luna,it was stressed that if an order of the Securities and Exchange Commission is erroneous, the appropriate remedy take is first, within the Commission itself, then, to the Supreme Court as mandated in Presidential Decree No. 902-A, the law creating the new Securities and Exchange Commission. Nowhere in the said cases was it held that a Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction over all other government agencies. On the contrary, the ruling was specifically limited to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The respondent court erred when it place the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Professional Regulation Commsision in the same category. As alraedy mentioned, with respect to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the laws cited explicitly provide with the procedure that need be taken when one is aggrieved by its order or ruling. Upon the other hand, there is no law providing for the next course of action for a party who wants to question a ruling or order of the Professional Regulation Commission. Unlike Commonwealth Act No. 83 and Presidential Decree No. 902-A, there is no provision in Presidential Decree No. 223, creating the Professional Regulation Commission, that orders or resolutions of the Commission are appealable either to the Court of Appeals or to theSupreme Court. Consequently, Civil Case No. 86-37950, which was filed in order to enjoin the enforcement of a resolution of the respondent Professional Regulation Commission alleged to be unconstitutional, should fall within the general jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, now the Regional Trial Court.7

What is clear from Presidential Decree No. 223 is that the Professional Regulation Commission is attached to the Office of the President for general direction and coordination.8Well settled in our jurisprudence is the view that even acts of the Office of the President may be reviewed by the Court of First Instance (now the Regional Trial Court). InMedalla vs. Sayo,9this rule was thoroughly propounded on, to wit:

Republic vs. Presiding Judge, CFI of Lanao del Norte, Br. II,11is another case in point. Here, "the Executive Office"' of the Department of Education and Culture issued Memorandum Order No. 93 under the authority of then Secretary of Education Juan Manuel. As in this case, a complaint for injunction was filed with the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte because, allegedly, the enforcement of the circular would impair some contracts already entered into by public school teachers. It was the contention of petitioner therein that "the Court of First Instance is not empowered to amend, reverse and modify what is otherwise the clear and explicit provision of the memorandum circular issued by the Executive Office which has the force and effect of law." In resolving the issue, We held:

InSan Miguel Corporation vs. Avelino,13We ruled that a judge of the Court of First Instance has the authority to decide on the validity of a city tax ordinance even after its validity had been contested before the Secretary of Justice and an opinion thereon had been rendered.

In view of the foregoing, We find no cogent reason why Resolution No. 105, issued by the respondent Professional Regulation Commission, should be exempted from the general jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.

Respondent PRC, on the other hand, contends that under Section 9, paragraph 3 of B.P. Blg. 129, it is the Court of Appeals which has jurisdiction over the case. The said law provides:

The contention is devoid of merit.

In order to invoke the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals as provided for in Section 9, paragraph 3 of B.P. Blg. 129, there has to be a final order or ruling which resulted from proceedings wherein the administrative body involved exercised itsquasi-judicialfunctions. In Black's Law Dictionary,quasi-judicialis defined as a term applied to the action, discretion, etc., of public administrative officers or bodies required to investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their official action, and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature. To expound thereon,quasi-judicialadjudication would mean a determination of rights, privileges and duties resulting in a decision or order which applies to a specific situation .14This does not cover rules and regulations of general applicability issued by the administrative body to implement its purely administrative policies and functions like Resolution No. 105 which was adopted by the respondent PRC as a measure to preserve the integrity of licensure examinations.

The above rule was adhered to inFilipinas Engineering and Machine Shop vs. Ferrer.15In this case, the issue presented was whether or not the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over a case involving an order of the Commission on Elections awarding a contract to a private party which originated from an invitation to bid. The said issue came about because under the laws then in force, final awards, judgments, decisions or orders of the Commission on Elections fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by way of certiorari. Hence, it has been consistently held that "it is the Supreme Court, not the Court of First Instance, which has exclusive jurisdiction to review on certiorari final decisions, orders, or rulings of the Commission on Elections relative to the conduct of elections and the enforcement of election laws."16

As to whether or not the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction in saidcase, We said:

One other case that should be mentioned in this regard isSalud vs. Central Bank of the Philippines.18Here, petitioner Central Bank, like respondent in this case, argued that under Section 9, paragraph 3 of B.P. Blg. 129, orders of the Monetary Board are appealable only to the Intermediate Appellate Court. Thus:

Anent the posture of the Central Bank, We made the following pronouncement:

In view of the foregoing, We hold that the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain Civil Case No. 86-37950 and enjoin the respondent PRC from enforcing its resolution.

Although We have finally settled the issue of jurisdiction, We find it imperative to decide once and for all the validity of Resolution No. 105 so as to provide the much awaited relief to those who are and will be affected by it.

Of course, We realize that the questioned resolution was adopted for a commendable purpose which is "to preserve the integrity and purity of the licensure examinations." However, its good aim cannot be a cloak to conceal its constitutional infirmities. On its face, it can be readily seen that it is unreasonable in that an examinee cannot evenattend any review class, briefing, conference or the like, or receive any hand-out, review material, or any tip from any school, collge or university, or any review center or the like or any reviewer, lecturer, instructor, official or employee of any of the aforementioned or similar institutions. ...21

The unreasonableness is more obvious in that one who is caught committing the prohibited acts even without any ill motives will be barred from taking future examinations conducted by the respondent PRC. Furthermore, it is inconceivable how the Commission can manage to have a watchful eye on each and every examinee during the three days before the examination period.

It is an aixiom in administrative law that administrative authorities should not act arbitrarily and capriciously in the issuance of rules and regulations. To be valid, such rules and regulations must be reasonable and fairly adapted to the end in view. If shown to bear no reasonable relation to the purposes for which they are authorized to be issued, then they must be held to be invalid.22

Resolution No. 105 is not only unreasonable and arbitrary, it also infringes on the examinees' right to liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. Respondent PRC has no authority to dictate on the reviewees as to how they should prepare themselves for the licensure examinations. They cannot be restrained from taking all the lawful steps needed to assure the fulfillment of their ambition to become public accountants. They have every right to make use of their faculties in attaining success in their endeavors. They should be allowed to enjoy their freedom to acquire useful knowledge that will promote their personal growth. As defined in a decision of the United States Supreme Court:

Another evident objection to Resolution No. 105 is that it violates the academic freedom of the schools concerned. Respondent PRC cannot interfere with the conduct of review that review schools and centers believe would best enable their enrolees to meet the standards required before becoming a full fledged public accountant. Unless the means or methods of instruction are clearly found to be inefficient, impractical, or riddled with corruption, review schools and centers may not be stopped from helping out their students. At this juncture, We call attention to Our pronouncement inGarciavs.The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology,24regarding academic freedom to wit:

Needless to say, the enforcement of Resolution No. 105 is not a guarantee that the alleged leakages in the licensure examinations will be eradicated or at least minimized. Making the examinees suffer by depriving them of legitimate means of review or preparation on those last three precious days-when they should be refreshing themselves with all that they have learned in the review classes and preparing their mental and psychological make-up for the examination day itself-would be like uprooting the tree to get ride of a rotten branch. What is needed to be done by the respondent is to find out the source of such leakages and stop it right there. If corrupt officials or personnel should be terminated from their loss, then so be it. Fixers or swindlers should be flushed out. Strict guidelines to be observed by examiners should be set up and if violations are committed, then licenses should be suspended or revoked. These are all within the powers of the respondent commission as provided for in Presidential Decree No. 223. But by all means the right and freedom of the examinees to avail of all legitimate means to prepare for the examinations should not be curtailed.

In the light of the above, We hereby REVERSE and SET ASIDE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 10591 and another judgment is hereby rendered declaring Resolution No. 105 null and void and of no force and effect for being unconstitutional. This decision is immediately executory. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa and Cruz, JJ., concur.

Griño-Aquino, J., took no part.

Footnotes