G.R. No. 188646, September 21, 2016
George C. Cordero, Petitioner, vs. Board of Nursing, Respondent.

FACTS

The case arose from the leakage of questions in the June 2006 Nursing Licensure Examinations. Petitioner George C. Cordero, head of the INRESS Review Center, was formally charged by the Board of Nursing (Board) for allegedly making known actual examination questions to reviewees during a final coaching session. The Formal Charge, signed by the Board Chairperson, alleged that specific test items discussed in a PowerPoint presentation were identical to those that appeared in the actual exams. Cordero filed an Answer arguing the Formal Charge was defective for lack of supporting sworn statements or documentary evidence, violating his right to due process and the PRC Rules of Procedure. He contended the Board acted as complainant, prosecutor, and judge, and that any leak must have originated from the PRC itself, not his review center.
The Board proceeded with the administrative case. Cordero repeatedly challenged the Board’s jurisdiction and the procedural validity of the charges, arguing that no proper complaint was filed by a qualified complainant as required by the PRC Rules. The Board denied his motions, prompting Cordero to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. He then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Board of Nursing committed grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the administrative case against Cordero despite alleged procedural infirmities in the initiation of the complaint.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Board’s actions. The Court held that the Board did not commit grave abuse of discretion. On the procedural issue, the Court ruled that the Board’s power to investigate is inherent in its mandate to regulate the nursing profession under Republic Act No. 9173. The PRC Rules of Procedure, which Cordero claimed were violated, are merely suppletory and do not curtail the Board’s statutory authority to initiate investigations motu proprio based on reports, such as the NBI findings in this case. The Formal Charge and attached documents sufficiently informed Cordero of the accusations against him, satisfying due process.
The Court further found no violation of the rule against combining prosecutorial and adjudicative functions. The Board’s role as investigator is distinct from its quasi-judicial function in deciding the case. The law envisions the Board both prosecuting through a designated officer and adjudicating, which is permissible in administrative proceedings. The charges were based on a report from the NBI, an independent body, not the Board’s own unilateral allegations. Therefore, the Board acted within its jurisdiction, and its proceedings were valid. The case was remanded to the Board for continuation of the administrative proceedings.