UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Consti 2

Lopez, Franco Luis G. (B2023) Prof. Dante Gatmaytan

Antolin v. Domondon
G.R. No. 165036 (2010)
DEL CASTILLO, J.
FACTS OF THE CASE:

 Petitioner Hazel Antolin took the 1997 CPA Board Exams

o However, she failed, receiving failing grades from four out of seven subjects

 Despite the circumstances, petitioner, convinced that she deserved to pass, wrote to then-Acting Chairman
of the Board of Accountancy, Abelardo Domondon (herein respondent)

 Domondon granted her request

o However, while her answer sheets were shown, the sheets only consisted of shaded marks

 Petitioner then requested for copies of the questionnaire, their respective answer keys, and an explanation of
the grading system used in each subject.

o Domondon, however, denied the request

 Petitioner then filed before the RTC for mandamus with damages, against the Board.

o She later amended her petition o clarify that she only wanted access to the documents requested, not
recorrection of her exam, deleting in the process her original prayer for issuance of a certificate
registration as CPA.

 Petitioner passed the May 1998 CPA Licensure Exam and took her oath as a CPA

o Consequently, the RTC denied her application for petition for being moot

 On her motion for reconsideration, the RTC reconsidered the dismissal, holding that her passing of the
examination did not render the petition moot because the relief to issue her a certificate of registration as CPA
was deleted from the original petition

o On the petitioner’s constitutional right to have access to the documents, the RTC resolved to let the
parties first adduce evidence
 Both parties applied for motion for reconsideration, but were denied.

 The Court of appeals set aside RTC’s decision and ordered the dismissal of the case on the ground of
mootness.

 Hence the instant petition

 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Consti 2
Lopez, Franco Luis G. (B2023) Prof. Dante Gatmaytan

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner has a right to obtain the copies she is requesting for
HELD
The Court cannot come to a conclusion, hence their remand to the RTC. Section 28, Article II of the 1987
Cosntitution provides that the State may adopt policies in the disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest,
as cross-referenced to Section 7, Article III of the same, which provides for the right of the people to information on
matters of public interest.
The CPA Board Exams are matters of public concern; the populace in general, and the examinees in particular, would
understandable 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.
The Court, nonetheless, realizes 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 the multiple choice
questionnaires.
The respondents, however, had not been given an opportunity to explain the reasons behind their regulations or
articulate the justification for keeping the Examination Papers confidential.
In view of the far-reaching implications of the case, which the Court deemed it best to remand the case to the RTC.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Petitions GRANTED. CA Decisions SET ASIDE. Case remanded to RTC for further proceedings.