H19

Re: Alleged Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct Committed by Nestor D. Bulaong, Court Stenographer I,
Municipal Trial Court, San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, A.M. No. P-21-015 [Formerly A.M. No. 14-2-24-MTC],
April 27, 2021

This is an administrative matter forwarded by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to the Court, alleging
that Nestor D. Bulaong (Bulaong), Court Stenographer I of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San
Antonio, Nueva Ecija, committed Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct.

The Antecedents:

The CSC, in a Letter dated December 26, 2013, referred this case to the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA). It alleged that Bulaong committed Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct in relation to the Career
Service Professional Examination which was held on December 17, 1995 in Malolos, Bulacan.
Apparently, Bulaong claimed that he took the examination and ean1ed the rating of 88.01%. Eventually,
Bulaong was appointed as Court Stenographer I.

However, based on the Formal Charge dated September 17, 1996 issued by the CSC, Bulaong
purportedly caused another individual to take the examination in his behalf. The CSC discovered the
scheme because there were glaring differences between the photograph and signature of Bulaong in his
Personal Data Sheets (PDS) and that in the examination's seat plan.

In his Answer/Counter-Affidavit6 dated October 17, 1996 filed before the CSC, Bulaong denied the
allegation and opted for a formal investigation.

The CSC scheduled a hearing on June 19, 1998 but it was postponed to July 31, 1998 upon Bulaong's
request. Since then, the CSC took no further action on Bulaong's case.

Given that Bulaong is an employee of the Judiciary, his case was referred to the Court through the
aforementioned letter dated December 26, 2013. Hence, Bulaong's case with the CSC was terminated.

On two (2) separate instances, the OCA directed Bulaong to tile his comment on the CSC's allegation, yet
he failed to do so.

Report and Recommendation of the OCA:

In an Evaluation and Recommendation8 dated June 6, 2016, the OCA recommended the. dismissal of
Bulaong from the service. It fully agreed with the findings of the CSC's investigation, as the records
revealed that Bulaong's photograph in his PDS appeared to be different from the attached picture in the
seat plan for the examination. Hence, Bulaong committed dishonesty.

Additionally, it found that there was no need for a handwriting expert to establish that Bulaong caused
another to take the examination for him. "The significant difference in the signature affixed in the PDS
and the one appearing in the seat plan, like the loops, lines, slant, pressure, fineness, contours and style,
reveals that the two (2) signatures belong to two (2) different persons. x x x it can be deduced that the
fake examinee did not even try to imitate respondent Bulaong's signature as appearing in the PDS.
Clearly, as aptly concluded by the CSC, this is a case of impersonation."
The OCA further noted that Bulaong's continuous and deliberate refusal to comply with the directive to
file a comment on the charge is a clear indication that he has the propensity to transgress the law. Thus,
it recommended Bulaong's dismissal from the service.

SC: We adopt the findings and recommendations of the OCA and resolve to DISMISS Bulaong from the
service on the ground of dishonesty.

The circumstances showed that Bulaong committed dishonesty prior to his appointment as a Court
Stenographer I, or before he even became an employee of the Judiciary. Nonetheless, "administrative
jurisdiction over a court employee belongs to the Supreme Court, regardless of whether the offense was
committed before or after employment in the judiciary."

Jurisprudence has defined dishonesty as "'intentionally making a false statement in any material fact, or
practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his examination, registration,
appointment or promotion.'" It implies a "disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; unworthiness;
lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and
straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray."

Hence, "like bad faith, [dishonesty] is not simply bad judgment or negligence... [it] is a question of
intention. In ascertaining the intention of a person accused of dishonesty, consideration must be taken
not only of the facts and circumstances which gave rise to the act committed by the respondent, but
also of his state of mind at the time the offense was committed, the time he might have had at his
disposal for the purpose of meditating on the consequences of his act, and the degree of reasoning he
could have had at that moment." In other words, dishonesty is a willful and voluntary act which cannot
be justified under the guise of negligence or ignorance.

In a number of cases, the Court did not hesitate to dismiss judicial employees from the service for
committing dishonesty, specifically for having another individual take the Civil Service Examination in
their stead.

To reiterate, the CSC's investigation categorically disclosed that Bulaong was not the one who actually
took the Career Service Professional Examination held on December 17, 1995 at Malolos, Bulacan. The
signatures of Bulaong in his PDS are clearly and totally different from that which appears in the seat plan
of the said examination. The signature in the seat plan spelled out Bulaong's complete name while
Bulaong's signatures in his PDS appear to be more on scribbles with loops. Moreover, the photographs
of Bulaong in his PDS and in the seat plan showed completely different people.

What is readily apparent from the records is that another person, who matched the photograph in the
seat plan using Bulaong's name, took the examination on December 17, 1996. Undeniably, there were
two individuals involved in such impersonation. "[T]he impersonation would not have been possible
without the active participation of both the respondent and the other person who took the examination
in [his] name. It must have only been with the permission and knowledge of respondent that the other
person was able to use [his] name for the examinations. More importantly, respondent has been
benefiting from the passing result in the said examination."

Moreover, Bulaong simply denied the charge in his Answer/Counter-Affidavit without any supporting
proof, which should be considered as a weak defense. Likewise, it should be noted that he made no
effort to defend himself after the OCA required him to file his comment. If he were truly blameless, he
should have exhausted every possible avenue to prove his innocence at the earliest opportunity. Yet, he
did not do so, which only bolstered the suspicion that he is guilty of committing the offense.

Thus, there is substantial evidence to rule that Bulaong committed dishonesty. Under Section of Rule
140, dishonesty is considered as a serious charge punishable by dismissal even if committed for the first
time.

Indeed, Bulaong should have realized that as an employee of the Judiciary, there is an expectation for
him to exemplify the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and uprightness as he represents not just
himself but the whole institution. In fact, the Code of Conduct of Court Personnel states the following:

WHEREAS, court personnel, from the lowliest employee to the clerk of court or any position lower than
that of a judge or justice, are involved in the dispensation of justice, and parties seeking redress from
the courts for grievances look upon court personnel as part of the Judiciary.

WHEREAS, in performing their duties and responsibilities, court personnel serve as sentinels of justice
and any act of impropriety on their part immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the Judiciary and
the people's confidence in it.

As a public officer, he is supposed to display ethical conduct in his official and private capacity and
"observe honesty, candor, and faithful compliance with the law. Nothing less is expected." Without a
doubt, "[t]he image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the
personnel who work thereat, from the judge to the lowest of its personnel." Unfortunately, Bulaong
failed to demonstrate such standard required from all employees of the Judiciary. His actions prejudiced
not only the civil service but the public in general, as he improperly secured the government position
when someone else was probably more qualified to hold it.

Although Bulaong's dismissal is warranted, he is still entitled to receive his accrued leave credits, if any,
which he earned during his employment. "As a matter of fairness and law, [he] may not be deprived of
such remuneration, which [he has] earned prior to [his] dismissal." This should, however, not be
construed as an indication that his grave transgression should be downplayed in any way. To stress, let
this case be a lesson and warning to those in the government service to think twice, nay thrice, about
committing offenses detrimental to the public. Putting one's job on the line just to get ahead is simply
not worth the trouble and shame it would cause later on.

WHEREFORE, respondent Nestor D. Bulaong is hereby found GUILTY of Dishonesty. He is DISMISSED

Daisy Joy Rojallo Cervantes,et.al v H.E Benigno Simeon Aquino III

G.R No. 210805 (May 11, 2021)

EN BANC

This special civil action for Certiorari and Prohibition1 with Application for the Issuance of a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order seeks to annul and set aside the proposed
privatization or commercialization of the Philippine Orthopedic Center (POC) and the subsequent award
of the Modernization of the POC Project (MPOC Project) to private respondents. It further seeks to
permanently prohibit and restrain public respondents from implementing the said modernization
project.

The petitioners in this case are patients and employees of the POC, health-allied professionals and
legislators.

They invoke the concurrent jurisdiction of this Court to resolve the present controversy claiming that
they do not have other available practical administrative remedies.

Public respondents, on the other hand, are being sued in their capacity as officials of the government
while private respondents are private corporations duly registered under Philippine laws.

FACTS:

The MPOC Project consists of the construction of a new hospital facility within the National Kidney and
Transplant Institute Compound along East Avenue, Quezon City, wherein the project proponent will
undertake the construction of a 700-bed capacity specialty care hospital providing orthopedic clinical
services and allied services; procurement, installation, operations and management of modern
diagnostics and clinical equipment; procurement, installation, operations and management of IT
facilities; operation and maintenance of the new hospital facility; provision of administrative and
ancillary services; provision of appropriately qualified staff; and provision of teaching and training
facilities to be used in the conduct of training programs to be offered in the new hospital facility.

To summarize, the concessionaire will design, build, finance, operate and maintain the facility for a
period of 25 years and thereafter, transfer the said facility to the Department of Health (DOH). The
MPOC Project shall be implemented through a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) arrangement under the
provisions of Republic Act No. (RA) 69575 as amended by RA 7718, otherwise known as the "Build-
Operate-and-Transfer (BOT) Law" and pursuant to the Public Private Partnership (PPP) Program of public
respondent former President Benigno S. Aquino III (respondent Aquino).

On November 18, 2012, the Modernization of the Philippine Orthopedic Center - Pre-Qualification, Bids
and Awards Committee (MPOC-PBAC) issued an invitation to pre-qualify and bid for the MPOC Project.

On June 4, 2013, the Consortium of Megawide Construction Company (Megawide) and World Citi
Medical Center (WCMC; collectively, the Consortium), submitted its proposal as the sole bidder. After
declaring the technical and financial bid of Megawide to be complete, the MPOC-PBAC submitted the
pertinent documents to the Investment Coordination Committee of the National Economic and
Development Authority (ICC-NEDA) for evaluation. The same was approved by the NEDA Board chaired
by respondent Aquino on November 21, 2013. Thus, the MPOC-PBAC issued Resolution No. 13 on
November 28, 2013 recommending to Enrique T. Ona (respondent Ona) the award of the MPOC Project
to Megawide. On December 9, 2013, respondent Ona issued a Notice of Award9 in favor of Megawide.

Pursuant thereto, public respondent DOH, through respondent Ona, executed a Build-Operate-Transfer
Agreement10 (BOT Agreement) with private respondents, through their authorized representative,
private respondent Manuel Louie B. Ferrer, on March 6, 2014.

These prompted petitioners to file before this Court on February 3, 2014 the present petition seeking to
annul and set aside the privatization of the POC including the award to Megawide of the MPOC Project
and accordingly prohibit the building, operation and transfer of the POC to Megawide.

Petitioners contend that the privatization of the Respondents counter that petitioners have no
POC will result in the denial of medical services to legal standing to initiate the instant action as
thousands of indigent Filipinos, a clear violation they do not stand to suffer any direct substantial
of their constitutional right to health.12 injury from the implementation of the MPOC
According to petitioners, under the present set- Project. As taxpayers, they lack the requisite
up, POC has a 700-bed capacity, 85% of which or capacity in the absence of any illegal expenditure
a total of 562 are allocated to service non-paying or an allegation of disbursement of public funds.
patients while only 15% or 95 beds are allotted to Anent petitioners-employees of the POC and
pay patients. health-related professionals, they will not sustain
direct or substantial injury from the
implementation of the MPOC Project as they will
not be terminated from their employment.
However, with the privatization of the POC, In fact, the modernization of the POC would give
Megawide is required to apportion only 10% of them more employment opportunities because
the 700 beds to service patients or a measly 70 they will have the option to continue working for
beds. Thus, the reduction of the beds to be the government or transfer to the new facility.
devoted to service patients is practically a denial Finally, petitioners-legislators are devoid of
of expert medical care for thousands of Filipinos standing in filing the instant petition because the
who do not have the means to pay for their MPOC Project does not infringe on their duties
medical needs. and prerogatives as legislators.
Moreover, petitioners argue that the Further, respondents argue that the petition does
privatization of the POC violates Section 6 of RA not raise any issue of transcendental importance
1939 which prescribes that all government because there is no prohibition against the
hospitals shall operate with not less than 90% of establishment of a BOT arrangement between
its bed capacity as free or charity beds the government and private entities for the
modernization of public hospitals such as the
POC.
Additionally, petitioners assert that the Respondents add that the petition involves a
privatization of the POC violates POCs employees' political question which is beyond the province of
right to security of tenure because they are only this Court to decide. They argue that the
given two options: to either work in the objection of petitioners to the partnership of the
Modernized POC in which case, they will have to DOH with Megawide in the development of the
resign or, if eligible, to retire from government POC is an attack, not only on the legality, but on
service, or they may be transferred to another the soundness of the policy behind the PPP
 DOH hospital. scheme employed in the MPOC Project
Lastly, petitioners aver that the DOH committed
grave abuse of discretion in awarding to the
Consortium a contract which is greatly
disadvantageous to the government and the
consumers as the public will eventually pay for
higher medical expenses contrary to the mandate
of the BOT Law which provides that tolls, fees
and rentals to be charged or collected should be
reasonable.

ISSUE: The primordial issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not public respondents gravely
abused their discretion in entering into the MPOC Project with private respondents.

SC: In light of the supervening "Notice of Termination"29 of the BOT Agreement served by private
respondents upon public respondent DOH on November 10, 2015 and received by the latter on even
date, the dismissal of the case on the ground of mootness is warranted.

The pertinent portion of the November 10, 2015 Notice of Termination reads:

In view of the foregoing, it is with deepest regret that we serve on your office this
Notice of Termination of the BOT Agreement. Section[s] 8.2 and 9.2a of the BOT
Agreement provide that if the delay in the performance of the DOH exceeds one
hundred eighty (180) days from Signing Date, the Project Proponent may opt to
terminate the BOT Agreement. This 180-day period came and went over a year ago
on September 2, 2014. Accordingly, the BOT Agreement will terminate on November
15, 2015 ("Termination Date").3

The grounds relied upon by private respondents in terminating the BOT Agreement
were Sections 8 and 9.2a thereof which pertinently provide:

Section 8. PROJECT SITE

Within 30 days from the Signing Date, the DOH shall make available and deliver to
the Project Proponent the Project Site by issuing a Certificate of Possession in the
name of the Project Proponent. If the delay in the issuance of the Certificate of
Possession exceeds one hundred eighty (180) days from Signing Date, the Project
Proponent shall be entitled to terminate this BOT Agreement without any liability to
the DOH or to treat such failure as Non-Fault Delay.

Section 9.2a

The DOH shall procure the services of the Independent Consultant during
Construction, subject to the terms of reference in Annex H within ninety (90) days
from Signing Date. If the delay in the appointment of the Independent Consultant
exceeds one hundred eighty (180) days from Signing Date, the Project Proponent
shall be entitled to terminate this BOT Agreement without any liability to the DOH or
to treat such failure as Non-Fault Delay.
Thus, on November 27, 2015, private respondents filed a Manifestation before this Court manifesting
that in view of this development, the instant petition has been rendered moot and academic.

-The action for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioners seeking to annul and set aside the BOT
Agreement for modernization of POC and to permanently enjoin respondents from implementing the
MPOC Project has been mooted by the termination of the BOT Agreement of private respondents.

To expound, "[a] case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable
controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the
issue would be of no practical value or use. In such instance, there is no actual substantial relief which a
petitioner would be entitled to, and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. Courts
generally decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on the ground of mootness. This is because the
judgment will not serve any useful purpose or have any practical legal effect because, in the nature of
things, it cannot be enforced.

In the case at bar, there is no dispute that the action for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioners
has been mooted by the termination of the BOT Agreement of private respondents. The staleness of the
claims becomes more manifest considering the reliefs sought by petitioners, i.e., to annul and set aside
the BOT Agreement for the modernization of the POC; and to permanently enjoin respondents from
implementing the MPOC Project, are hinged on the existence of the BOT Agreement.

Corollarily, the eventual termination of the BOT Agreement rendered the resolution of the issues
relating to the prayers for certiorari and prohibition of no practical or legal effect. Simply stated,
petitioners in this case would no longer be entitled to any actual substantial relief regardless of this
Court's disposition on the merits of the present petition.

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition for being moot and academic.

H23

Professional Regulation Commission v. Philippine Society of Mechanical Engineers (PSME),

G.R. No. 254282, September 14, 2021

FACTS: On October 21 to 25, 2015, respondent Philippine Society of Mechanical Engineers (PSME) held
its 63rd National Convention and General Membership Meeting. The convention involved the election of
the 2016 PSME National Board of Directors which, in turn, had the authority to elect the 2016 PSME
National Officers.

On October 25, 2015, the PSME Commission on Elections (PSMECOMELEC) through the 2015 PSME
National President, Engr. Pablito Ocampo, confirmed the 2016 election results where fifteen (15)
members won the seats in the board of directors.

On October 26, 2015, however, Engr. Leandro A. Conti (Engr. Conti) filed a letter-protest before the
PSME-COMELEC. He claimed that: (1) the Manila Chapter accepted ballots after the 5 o'clock deadline;
(2) 3,500 ballots from the Manila Chapter were cast in favor of a single set of candidate; (3) the ballots
contained a single penmanship with the same pen used; (4) there was a single sequence on how the
candidates appeared on the ballots; (5) the list of voters in the Manila Chapter included names of
inactive members; and (6) there was discrepancy in the tallying of votes in the entire National Capital
Region affecting the order or position of candidates.

On November 5, 2015, the 2015 PSME Executive Committee invited the incoming members of the 2016
Board for a special meeting on November 28, 2015. The purpose of the meeting was for the election of
the 2016 PSME National Officers to be supervised by the PSME-COMELEC.

On November 7, 2015, the PSME-COMELEC called a meeting which was attended by the group of Engr.
Murry F. Demdam (Engr. Demdam). There, PSME-COMELEC furnished Engr. Demdam with Engr. Conti's
letter-protest. In turn, Engr. Demdam's group handed the PSME-COMELEC two (2) letters: (1) one
pointing out the supposed lack of authority of the PSMECOMELEC to entertain the protest of Engr.
Conti, and (2) another, demanding that the PSME-COMELEC proceed with the Special Board Meeting
scheduled on November 28, 2015.

Thereafter, on November 14, 2015, the 2015 PSME National Board of Directors passed Resolution 2015-
59 directing the PSME-COMELEC and the newly elected directors to attend the November 28, 2015
Special Board Meeting at the Philippine Columbian Association.9 But instead of complying therewith,
the PSME-COMELEC issued its Omnibus Resolution dated November 22, 2015 resolving the protest in
favor of Engr. Conti. Thus, the PSME-COMELEC annulled the tally sheets covering 999 votes from the
NCR Chapter on ground of improbability;10 and (2) the members of the group of Engr. Conti were
declared as the newly elected members of the 2016 Board of Directors.

Too, on November 25, 2015, the PSME-COMELEC conducted the election for the 2016 PSME National
Officers where Engr. Conti got elected as National President. Immediately thereafter, Engr. Conti
furnished the Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC) copies of the purported new set of the 2016
PSME National Officers. The following day, or on November 26, 2015, Engr. Conti's group filed an intra-
corporate case which got raffled to RTC Manila-Br. 24. The case was against Engr. Demdam's group
praying that the November 22, 2015 Omnibus Resolution of PSMECOMELEC as well as the November 25,
2015 election of the 2016 PSME National Officers be declared valid and effective.

Despite these supervening events, the 2015 PSME National Board of Directors still proceeded with the
scheduled Special Board Meeting on November 28, 2015 for the election of the 2016 PSME National
Officers. There, Engr. Demdam won as the 2016 PSME National President.

On December 18, 2015, however, the PRC through Acting Chairperson (AC) Angeline Chua Chiaco sent a
letter addressed to the 2015 outgoing PSME President Engr. Ocampo, acknowledging Engr. Conti as the
2016 PSME National President. Thus, on December 21, 2015, PSME represented, by Engr. Demdam
sought the recall of AC Chiaco's December 18, 2015 letter.

On February 10, 2016, the PRC nonetheless issued Office Order No. 2015-56 recognizing Engr. Conti as
the 2016 PSME National President solely for the purpose of issuing Certificates of Good Standing
required for the PSME members applications for renewal of their Professional Identification Cards

On March 7, 2016, the PSME filed a petition for declaration of nullity of PRC Office Order No. 2016-56
which got raffled to RTC Manila-Br. 6. The PSME posited that the aforesaid Order was contrary to
Republic Act No. 898120 (RA 8981) which limits the power of the PRC to regulating the policies and
practice of certain professions. The PRC did not have the authority to decide on who can sit as officers
in a particular professional organization. Thus, it has no power to proclaim Engr. Conti as the 2016
PSME National President. More, Engr. Conti had no authority to sign the Certificates of Good Standing of
the PSME members in 2016.

RTC Manila-Br. 6: granted the PRC's motion to dismiss. It ruled that the petition for declaration of nullity
of PRC Office Order No. 2015-56 had been rendered moot and academic when the RTC Manila-Br. 24, in
the intra-corporate case, affirmed the validity of the PSME Comelec Omnibus Resolution dated
November 22, 2015 declaring Engr. Conti's group as winners in the 2016 PSME National Board of
Directors. Thus, there was no more need to resolve the nullity complaint assailing PRC Office Order No.
2016-56 which recognized Engr. Conti as the duly elected 2016 PSME National President.

CA: Reversed the ruling of the RTC.

CA declared void the 2016 PSME National Officers' election held on November 25, 2015 where Engr.
Conti supposedly got elected as National President. Too, res judicata did not apply to the case below.
There was neither identity of parties, causes of action, nor remedies prayed for. In the intra-corporate
case, the parties were all PSME members while in the nullity case, the parties were the PSME through
Engr. Demdam and the PRC including two (2) of its Commissioners. The subject matter in the former was
the validity of the PSME-COMELEC's November 22, 2015 Omnibus Resolution, while the latter involved
the nullity of the PRC Office Order No. 2016-56 recognizing Engr. Conti as the duly elected 2016 national
president. Lastly, in the intra-corporate case, Engr. Conti and his group prayed that they be declared the
duly elected 2016 PSME National Officers, while in the nullity case, Engr. Demdam prayed that PRC
Office Order No. 2016-56 be declared void.

SC: Here, the petition for nullity pending before the RTC Manila-Br. 6 assailing the PRC Office Order No.
2016-56 insofar as it recognized Engr. Conti as the 2016 National President, is already moot. Consider:

First. There is no longer any justiciable controversy to be resolved here since the decision in the intra-
corporate case has already rendered the PRC Office Order No. 2016-56 ineffective. In view of the
decision of the RTC Manila-Br. 24 in the intra-corporate case declaring void the election of the 2016
PSME National Officers held on November 25, 2015 where Engr. Conti was declared as National
President, it follows that the PRC Office Order No. 2016-56 - which recognized Engr. Conti as the 2016
PSME National President and official signatory in the Certificates of Good Standing of PSME members, is
deemed cancelled. Thus, to still continue with the nullity case when no practical consequence will be
achieved anyway is pointless. In effect, the Court can no longer grant any substantial relief to which the
respondent may be entitled.

Second. Respondent PSME will not obtain any actual or substantial relief in pursuing the declaration of
nullity of PRC Office Order No. 2016-56. To recall, the subject of the PRC office order was merely to
recognize Engr. Conti as the one who may sign and issue the Certificates of Good Standing which was
then required of the PSME members for them to renew their Professional Identification Cards

Third. The 2016 National Officers' election had long taken place. PRC Office Order No. 2016-56 was
further mooted when Engr. Conti got appointed as Chairman of the Professional Regulatory Board for
Mechanical Engineers. Too, since 2019, the incumbent PSME National President is already Engr. Jeffrey
F. Singson. The conclusion of the 2016 PSME National Election and the eventual appointment of the
current set of officers in 2019 has now therefore removed any actual controversies between the parties.
It has rendered the resolution of the nullity case superfluous. Thus, as ordained in Philippine Sugar
Institute v. Association of Philsugin Employees any decision upon the nullity case would serve no useful
purpose and the grant of any actual substantial relief is no longer feasible.

Simply put, no practical relief can be granted by the Court in this case. It would therefore be
unnecessary to indulge in further academic discussion here since a judgment on the petition for nullity
of PRC Office Order No. 2016-56 will not have any practical effect, or in the nature of things, cannot be
enforced.

IN A NUTSHELL

The Supreme Court (SC) has granted the petition of the Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC) to put
to rest a complaint assailing its recognition of Engineer Leonardo Conti as the National President of the
Philippine Society of Mechanical Engineers (PSME) in 2016 for being moot.

In a 10-page decision on G.R. No. 254282, the SC 1st Division set aside the Court of Appeals’ (CA) March
10, 2020 decision reviving the complaint of the PSME faction led by Engineer Murry Demdam seeking to
nullify PRC Office Order No. 2016-56.

The PRC order, issued February 10, 2016, recognized Engineer Leonardo Conti as the duly elected PSME
National President. This prompted Demdam’s group to file the complaint for declaration of nullity
before the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 6.

“The PRC was merely performing its mandate to administer and process the renewal of the
identification cards of professionals under its jurisdiction. It would thus be absurd and illegal for the PRC
to cease from processing the renewal of the professional licenses of mechanical engineers just because
of the stand-off between the groups of Engr. Conti and Engr. Demdam,” the SC held.

The SC pointed out that the need for provisional recognition was “rendered ineffective” when the PRC
on August 5, 2016 suspended the implementation of the Certificate of Good Standing requirement for
the renewal of Professional Identification Cards of mechanical engineers and certified plant mechanics.

Lastly, the SC noted that Conti already got appointed as Chairman of the Professional Regulatory Board
for Mechanical Engineers, and the incumbent PSME National President since 2019 was Engineer Jeffrey
Singson. This “removed any actual controversies between the parties.”