Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

MARIANO P. FLORES,
Petitioner, Case No. _________________
(Adm. Case No. 64)
-versus-

DR. CLEOFE C. PALAC, RGC and

Board of Guidance and Counseling
of the Professional Regulation
Commission,
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

This is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court that seeks to nullify and set aside the respondent order’s dated
____________1 and _____________2, based on the ground stated on page ___ of
this petition.

1 A certified True Copy of public respondent’s order dated _________ is hereby attached as Annex “A”.

2 A certified True Copy of Atty. Hector Silva’s Letter is hereby attached as Annex “B”.
 PREFATORY STATEMENT

“xxx an apparent lack of due process may be raised by a party at any

time since due process is a jurisdictional requisite that all tribunals,
whether administrative or judicial, are duty bound to observe. In Salva v.
Valle, the Court pronounced that "[a]decision rendered without due process
is void ab initio and may be attacked at any time directly or collaterally by
means of a separate action, or by resisting such decision in any action or
proceeding where it is invoked.”3

THE PARTIES

1. Petitioner, MARIANO P. FLORES is of legal age, Filipino, and a

resident of Unit 112 Building 6, C-5 MRB Condominium, Barangay
Ususan, Taguig City, where he may be served with summons and other
legal processes.

2. Private Respondent DR. CLEOFE C. PALAC, RGC is of legal age,

Filipino, and a resident of Block 5B Lot 4 Kalayaan Village, Pasay City
where she may be served summons and other processes of this
Honorable Court.

3. Public Respondent BOARD OF GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING OF

THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION (herein
referred as “BOARD”) is the committee that heard and resolved
Administrative Case No. 64 entitled Mariano P. Flores versus Dr. Cleofe
C. Palac, RGC with office address at ____________ where it may be
served summons and other processes of this Honorable Court.

3 APO CEMENT CORPORATION VS. MINGSON MINING INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 206728,

NOVEMBER 12, 2014.

 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES

4. Public respondent BOARD sent a copy of its Decision dated June 23,
2015 to petitioner’s former legal counsel whereby pieces of evidence and
material points raised by the petitioner seemed to have been left out nor
considered by the public respondent in rendering its Decision, on
September 14, 2015.The petitioner was constraint to file a Manifestation
with Motion by himself seeking for extension within which he could file
his Motion for Reconsideration on the above-cited decision and
requested for a free copy of Transcript of Stenographer Notes (TSN) of
private respondent’s direct testimony and her cross-examination. Under
the TSN there are pieces of evidence and material points used as part of
petitioner’s evidence which seemed to have been left out nor considered
by the public respondent in rendering its decision.

5. Unfortunately, petitioner’s request for free copy of TSN was DENIED

by Atty. Eugene Riego, Head Professional Regulation Commission
Legal Division despite of being entitled of having a free copy of TSN
as a Public Attorney’s Office client.

6. On January 12, 2016, the Honorable Board of Guidance and Counseling

released its Resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the
private respondent wherein the Board of Guidance and Counseling
DENIED the Motion for Reconsideration.

7. On July 28, 2016, the Honorable Board of Guidance and Counseling

issued its Resolution on the Manifestation with Motion filed by the
petitioner, wherein it DENIED the Manifestation with Motion filed by
the petitioner. The dispositive portion reads as:

“WHEREFORE, the complainant’s manifestation

with motiondated September 14, 2015, asking this
Board to grant him additional fifteen (15) days to
 appeal the Decision dated June 23, 2015, is hereby
DENIED.

So ordered.”

8. When petitioner asked for help from the Professional Regulation

Commission Office of the Chairman, Atty. Riego, sought legal opinion
from the Public Attorney’s Office on ______ inquiring whether or not
their clients are exempted from paying TSN fee.

9. In response to Atty. Riego’s letter, the Public Attorney’s Office explained

to him in writing that clients of PAO are exempted from paying TSN fee
that is why on _______ the former gave a certified true copy of petitioner
and private respondent’s documentary evidence and TSN of petitioner
and his witnesses’ testimony. However, it failed to give the TSN of
private respondent’s direct testimony and cross-examination because it
is inexplicably missing from the record of the case which is grave on the
part of the Petitioner since the cross-examination of the respondent
would give weight to the whole appeal sought for by the petitioner for a
higher penalty to be meted to the respondent.

10. Petitioner and his legal counsel sought the assistance of Atty. Riego in
shedding light on the whereabouts of some missing documents in the
record of Administrative Case No. 64 entitled “Mariano P. Flores vs. Dr.
Cleofe C. Palac”, considering that if these transcripts were in fact
incomplete and the vital parts were missing, then the Decision rendered
would not have considered all the evidence to support it. Unfortunately,
however, no information has been given to the petitioner nor to his legal
counsel on why there were missing documents in the records of the case.

11. In order to pursue the case further in the interest of justice, The
Petitioner on __________, filed his Notice of Appeal With Memorandum
of Appeal seeking reversal of Honorable Board of Guidance and
Counseling Decision dated June 23, 2015.
 12. While constantly making follow-ups on the status of his appeal, the
Petitioner was taken by surprise when instead of issuing an order on the
outcome of petitioner’s Notice of Appeal With Memorandum of Appeal,
Atty. Hector Silva who is the Officer-In-Charge of Professional
Regulation Commission wrote a letter stating that said appeal is moot
and academic and informed the petitioner that his appeal was not
elevated before the Honorable Commission of Professional Regulation
Commission because it was filed beyond reglementary period within
which to file an appeal. Said letter was noted by Atty. Eugene Riego, Jr.,
Officer-In-Charge of Professional Regulation Commission Legal
Division.

STATEMENT OF MATTERS INVOLVED

13. On August 2008, the Petitioner was pulled-out in Adamson University

Placement Office because of the accusations of DR. CLEOFE PALAC,
RGC that he is inventing stories and circulating confidential matters in
Guidance Office in other offices and that she eventually required herein
petitioner to undergo Counseling under five different counselors.
Petitioner underwent separate sessions with each of the counselors
assigned4. These five counselors reported to the respondent.

14. According to the respondent before the counseling sessions started,

petitioner’s five counselors are about to make a recommendation before
the end of the second semester of school year 2008-2009 and there will be
an open forum with him together with the Director for Office for
Student Assistance and Scholarship, his five Counselors and the
Respondent but unfortunately it never happened.

15. During petitioner’s counseling sessions with the respondent, the latter
would always accuse the petitioner anything which seemed to come into

4 A copy of Minutes if the meeting between the petitioner and private complainant is hereby attached as Annex “C”.
 her mind. Respondent always say many bad things and to make matters
worse, respondent was never shy in calling out the petitioner as
MENTALLY SICK.

16. On November 10, 2008, petitioner filed a case against the respondent
before the Vice-President for Student Affairs Office of Adamson
University.5

17. Petitioner then sent a report letter 6 through electronic mail (e-mail)
addressed to DR. IMELDA V.G. VILLAR and also faxed the same using
the telefax number of the Philippine Guidance and Counseling
Association Secretariat as recipient.

18. Petitioner was adamant in asking for a recommendation letter of his five
Counselors during his counseling sessions but sadly nothing was given
to him.7

19. Private respondent violated CHAPTER IV: Relationship with Other

professionals under Code of Ethics for Counselors and the Counseling
Profession/Proposed Code of Ethics (revised as of December 21, 2006 @
Dr. Villar’s residence). The Director of Adamson University Office for
Student Affairs, Director of Adamson University Office for Student
Assistance and Scholarship, Secretary of Vice-President for Student
Affairs, the Head of Adamson University Placement Office and the head
of Adamson University Testing Office filed a case against Dr. Palac.

20. DR. CLEOFE PALAC, RGC filed a case against the petitioner last March
5, 2009.8 This case contained ALLEGATIONS AND CONFIDENTIAL

5 A copy of petitioner’s complaint-affidavit filed against the private respondent before the Adamson University Office of the Vice-
President for Student Affairs is hereby attached as Annex “D”

6 A copy of petitioner’s letter dated ________ address to Dr. Imelda Villar is hereby attached as Annex “E”.

7 A copy of petitioner’s letter dated ________ address to Dr. Cleofe C. Palac is hereby attached as Annex “F”.

8 A copy of private respondent’s complaint-affidavit filed against the petitioner before the Adamson University Office of Student Affairs is
hereby attached as Annex “G”.
 MATTERS such as her recommendation letter/some details about
petitioner’s revelation during his counseling sessions which is DIRECT
ASSAULT TO PETITIONER’S INTEGRITY AND MOST OF ALL
VIOLATION OF NUMBERS ONE, TWO, FOUR AND FIVE OF
CHAPTER II: Counseling Relationship under Code of Ethics for
Counselors and the Counseling Profession/Proposed Code of Ethics
(Revised as of December 21, 2006 Dr. Villar’s residence).

21. DR. CLEOFE PALAC, RGC, continuously did UNPROFESSIONAL

ACTS to the petitioner which includes but not limited to instances
wherein she closed the door of her office, she ORDERED Dr. Angelina
Miranda, RGC to call petitioner’s guardian to go to the office of private
respondent without following the PROTOCOL whereby the
client/student should be aware that his guardian will be invited to come
to the office of the Guidance Director together with petitioner’s sister
who answered the call.

22. With the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the unacceptable and irrational
acts of the respondent, the former decided to draft a complaint by
himself and filed a case before the Professional Regulation Commission
against the Respondent.9

23. On June 23, 2015, the Board of Guidance and Counseling rendered its
Decision10 in Administrative Case No. 64 entitled “Mariano P. Flores
versus Cleofe C. Palac”, the dispositive portion which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, decision is

hereby rendered REPRIMANDING respondent Cleofe C.
Palac for her unprofessional conduct. She is warned that a

9 A copy of petitioner’s complaint against Dr. Cleofe C. Palac before the Professional Regulation Commission is hereby attached as Annex
“H”

10 A copy of public respondent’s decision dated June 23, 2015 id hereby attached as Annex “I”
 repetition of the same or similar act for which she is
herein penalized shall be dealt with accordingly.

So ordered.”

24. On August 15, 2015, respondent moved for reconsideration of the

above-cited decision by timely filing her Motion for Reconsideration11.

25. On September 14, 2015, the petitioner, by himself, filed a Manifestation

with Motion12 seeking for additional time within which he could file his
Motion for Reconsideration on the above-cited decision.

26. On January 12, 2016, the Honorable Board of Guidance and Counseling
released its resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the
respondent wherein in the dispositive part of the Resolution, the Board
of Guidance and Counseling DENIED13the Motion for Reconsideration
of the respondent.

27. On July 28, 2016, the Honorable Board of Guidance and Counseling
issued its Resolution 14 on the Manifestation with Motion filed by the
petitioner wherein it DENIED the Manifestation with Motion filed by
the petitioner. The dispositive portion which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the complainant’s manifestation

with motion dated September 14, 2015, asking this Board
to grant him additional fifteen (15) days to appeal the
Decision dated June 23, 2015, is hereby DENIED.

11 A copy of private respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration dated August 15, 2015 is hereby attached as Annex “J”.

12 A copy of petitioner’s Manifestation with Motion dated September 14, 2015 is hereby attached as Annex “K”.

13 A copy of public respondent’s resolution dated January 12, 2016 is hereby attached as Annex “L”.

14 Please see, footnote 1.

 So ordered.”
28. When the petitioner asked for help from the Professional Regulation
Commission Office of the Chairman, Atty. Riego, sought legal opinion
from the Public Attorney’s Office on ______ inquiring whether or not
their clients are exempted from paying TSN fee15.

29. In response to Atty. Riego’s letter, the Public Attorney’s Office

explained to him in writing that clients of PAO are exempted from
paying TSN fee16 that is why on _______ the former gave a certified true
copy of petitioner and private respondent’s documentary evidence and
TSN of petitioner and his witnesses’ testimony. However, it failed to
give the TSN of private respondent’s direct testimony and cross-
examination because it is inexplicably missing from the record of the
case which is grave on the part of the Petitioner since the cross-
examination of the respondent would give weight to the whole appeal
sought for by the petitioner for a higher penalty to be meted to the
respondent.

30. Petitioner and his legal counsel sought the assistance of Atty. Riego in
shedding light on the whereabouts of some missing documents in the
record of Administrative Case No. 64 entitled “Mariano P. Flores vs. Dr.
Cleofe C. Palac” 17 , considering that if these transcripts were in fact
incomplete and the vital parts were missing, then the Decision rendered
would not have considered all the evidence to support it. Unfortunately,
however, no information has been given to the petitioner nor to his legal
counsel on why there were missing documents in the records of the case.

31. In order to pursue the case further in the interest of justice, The

15 A copy of Atty. Riego’s letter address to the Public Attorney’s Office dated _________ is hereby attached as Annex “M”.

16 A copy of Public Attorney’s Office letter address to Atty. Riego dated ___________ is hereby attached as Annex “N”.

17 A copy of Atty. Martin Inigo Ortiz’s letter dated _______ is hereby attached as Annex “O”.
 Petitioner on __________, filed his Notice of Appeal With Memorandum
of Appeal 18 seeking reversal of Honorable Board of Guidance and
Counseling Decision dated June 23, 2015.

32. While constantly making follow-ups on the status of his appeal, the
Petitioner was taken by surprise when instead of issuing an order on the
outcome of petitioner’s Notice of Appeal With Memorandum of Appeal,
Atty. Hector Silva who is the Officer-In-Charge of Professional
Regulation Commission wrote a letter19 stating that said appeal is moot
and academic and informed the petitioner that his appeal was not
elevated before the Honorable Commission of Professional Regulation
Commission because it was filed beyond reglementary period within
which to file an appeal. Said letter was noted by Atty. Eugene Riego, Jr.,
Officer-In-Charge of Professional Regulation Commission Legal
Division.

Hence, this instant petition.

GROUNDS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE PETITION

33. Public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to

lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s Manifestation with
Motion dated September 14, 2015 and declaring petitioner’s Notice of
Appeal with Memorandum of Appeal moot and academic. The
following errors, being contrary to applicable law and jurisprudence,
would work to the petitioner’s prejudice if not corrected.

34. There was no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the

18 A copy of petitioner’s Notice of Appeal with Memorandum of Appeal dated _______ is hereby attached as Annex “P”.

19 Please see, footnote 2.

 ordinary course of law for the petitioner to seek redress as law and
justice may require.

ISSUE PRESENTED FOR RESOLUTION

WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT BOARD AND

GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING COMMITTED GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN SAID BOARD OF
GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING DENIED PETITIONER’S
MANIFESTION OF MOTION DATED SEPTEMBER 14, 2015.

II
WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT BOARD AND
GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING COMMITTED GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN SAID BOARD OF
GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING DECLARED THAT
PETITIONER’S MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IS ALREADY
MOOT AND ACADEMIC.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS

I
Whether or Not public
respondent Board and Guidance
and Counseling committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction
when said Board of Guidance and
Counseling DENIED Petitioner’s
Manifestation of Motion?
35. In denying petitioner’s Manifestation with Motion dated September 14,
2015, the public respondent ruled that“____________________________.”

36. It is humbly submitted that Court has the power to a particular case
from the operation of the rule whenever the purposes of justice requires
it.

37. In the present case, no such obstinate refusal or inordinate neglect that
can be attributed to Petitioner. It should be emphasized that petitioner
was represented by counsel on record Atty. Martin Inigo Ortiz since he
entered his appearance in 2011. Thus, all notices, orders, resolution,
judgments and pleadings should be properly addressed to Atty. Ortiz
and the TSN of private respondent’s direct testimony and cross-
examination were inexplicably missing from the record of the case.

38. For unknown reason, a copy of the public respondent’s Decision dated
June 23, 2015 was addressed to Atty. Anna Karenina Chua who was then

no longer connected with the Public Attorney’s Office. Also, and more

importantly, the TSN of private respondent’s direct testimony and cross-

examination were missing from the record of the case. These
unfortunate incidents could not be considered as inordinate neglect on
the part of the petitioner.

39. Neither could Petitioner be said to have committed an inordinate

refusal to obey the Rules and Regulations in Administrative
Investigations.

40. For said reason, the public respondent must not averse to suspending
its own rules in the pursuit of justice. If “Where the interests of justice so
require, relief is accorded to the client who suffered by reason of the
lawyer’s gross or palpable mistake or negligence”. It is the humble
opinion of the petitioner that a relief must be accorded to herein
petitioner who suffered by reason of Hearing and Investigation Division
of PRC staff who sent a copy of public respondent’s decision dated June
 23, 2015 and Hearing Officer who keep the record of the case of origin
negligence.

41. Furthermore, a careful perusal of the instant case would show that
herein petitioner, ever since the inception of this instant case, was
praying for the exclusion of the private respondent from the Rolls of
Guidance Counselors. Considering that the decision of the public
respondent dated June 23, 2015 only meted a penalty of Reprimand
against the private respondent, although it may seem as a favorable
judgment for the petitioner, it can be said that he was still aggrieved by
the decision of public respondent Board of Guidance and Counseling
dated June 23, 2015.

42. Petitioner is well aware that his instant Memorandum of Appeal is

being filed outside the period set forth within which to file a
Memorandum of Appeal. However, it is his humble opinion that in the
search for the highest interest of justice, technicalities may be set aside in
order for the parties to be fully afforded the opportunity to seek justice
which is the very reason he sought for the Public Attorney’s Office to
help him in filing this Memorandum of Appeal.

43. The Supreme Court of the Philippines has always stood by the principle
that “In the hierarchy observed in the dispensation of justice, rules of
procedure can be disregarded in order to serve the ends of justice”.
This was further explained by Justice Bernando P. Pardo, in Aguam v.
Court of Appeals, proclaimed:

“Litigations must be decided on their merits and

not on technicality. Every party litigant must be
afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper
and just determination of his cause, free from the
unacceptable plea of technicalities. Thus, dismissal
of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned
upon where the policy of the court is to encourage
hearings of appeals on their merits and the rules of
 procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid,
technical sense; rules of procedure are used only to
help secure, not override substantial justice. It is a
far better and more prudent course of action for the
court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the
parties a review of the case on appeal to attain the
ends of justice rather than dispose of the case on
technicality and cause a grave injustice to the
parties, giving a false impression of speedy
disposal of cases while actually resulting in more
delay, if not a miscarriage of justice.”

44. As early as September 14, 2014, herein Petitioner, by himself, filed his
Manifestation With Motion wherein he sought for additional time to file
his Motion for Reconsideration. In the same Motion, he intimated that he
is an indigent person. As such, he cannot afford to pay the Transcript of
Stenographic Notes (TSN).

45. Thus, as much as he doesn’t want to violate the rules and

regulations in administrative investigations, unfortunately,
however, due to his financial status wherein he clearly falls in the
bracket of those who are considered poor, he was unable to timely
file his Motion for Reconsideration.

46. With all due respect, it is the humblest opinion of the Petitioner
that the strict rules of procedure should not be used as a roadblock
against him from attaining justice. This is supported by the
Supreme Court ruling in the case of Asian Spirit Airlines v. Spouses
Bautista, thus:

In Asian Spirit Airlines v. Spouses Bautista, this

Court clarified that procedural rules are required to
be followed except only for the most persuasive of
reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a
litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the
 degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying
with the procedure prescribed xxx”

47. The Public Respondent should not have been too harsh in dismissing
the petitioner’s Notice of Appeal with Memorandum of Appeal
considering it had valid reasons that prevented him from filing his
appeal within the reglementary period prescribed by Rules and
Regulations in Administrative Investigations.

48. It is well settled that to question the jurisdiction of the lower court or
the agency exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, the remedy is
a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
The petitioner in such cases must clearly show that the public
respondent acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Grave abuse of discretion
defies exact definition, but generally refers to “capricious or whimsical
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of
discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of
positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or
to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in
an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.
(Quintos vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 149800, November 21, 2002; People vs
Webb, G.R. No. 132577, August 17, 1999)

49. There can be no better paradigm of capricious and exercise of judgment

than the act of public respondent in issuing the assailed orders. Public
respondent did not merely fairly and justly ruled in accordance with the
circumstances surrounding the case but it even issued orders in defiance
with the settled laws and jurisprudence promulgated by the Honorable
Supreme Court.

II
Whether or Not public respondent
Board and Guidance and
Counselingcommitted grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction when said
Board of Guidance and Counseling
DECLARED that Petitioner’s
Notice of Appeal with
Memorandum of Appeal is already
moot and academic?

50. In declaring petitioner’s Notice of Appeal with Memorandum of

Appeal, the public respondent through Atty. Hector Silva, Officer-In-
Charge of Professional Regulation Commission noted by Atty. Eugene
Riego, Jr., Officer-In-Charge of Professional Regulation Commission
Legal Division wrote a letter dated April 1, 2019. Further, Atty. Silva
informed the petitioner that his appeal was not elevated before the
Honorable Commission of Professional Regulation Commission because
it was filed beyond reglementary period within which to file an appeal.

51. Rule XVI, Sec. 1 of 2017 Revised Rules and Regulations in

Administrative Investigations provides:

“Sec. 1. Appeal; Period Non-extendible. – The decision,

Order or resolution of the Board that completely disposes of the
Case shall be final and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15)
days from receipt thereof without an appeal being undertaken
by either party.

xxx.”

52. However, the aforementioned rule is not absolute according to the

Honorable Supreme Court, it admits of certain exceptions.

53. In the case of Marlon Curammeng y Pablo vs. People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 21510, the Honorable Supreme Court ruled:

"xxx the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due

process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised
only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. A
party who seeks to avail of the right must, therefore, comply with
the requirements of the rules, failing which the right to appeal is
invariably lost." Verily, compliance with procedural rules is a must,
"since they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases to
remedy the worsening problem of delay in the resolution of rival
claims and in the administration of justice."

Nevertheless, if a rigid application of the rules of procedure

will tend to obstruct rather than serve the broader interests of
justice in light of the prevailing circumstances of the case, such as
where strong considerations of substantive justice are manifest in
the petition, the Court may relax the strict application of the rules
of procedure in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction. The Court's
pronouncement in Heirs of Zaulda v. Zaulda is instructive on this
matter, to wit:

The reduction in the number of pending cases is laudable,

but if it would be attained by precipitate, if not preposterous,
application of technicalities, justice would not be served. The law
abhors technicalities that impede the cause of justice. The court's
primary duty is to render or dispense justice. "It is a more prudent
course of action for the court to excuse a technical lapse and
afford the parties a review of the case on appeal rather than
dispose of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to
the parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases
while actually resulting in more delay, if not miscarriage of
justice."

What should guide judicial action is the principle that a

party-litigant should be given the fullest opportunity to establish
the merits of his complaint or defense rather than for him to lose
life, liberty, honor, or property on technicalities. The rules of
procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the
attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which
would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than
 promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed. At this
juncture, the Court reminds all members of the bench and bar of
the admonition in the often-cited case of Alonso v. Villamar [16 Phil.
315, 322 (1910)]:

Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier's thrust.

Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice
and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant
consideration from courts. There should be no vested rights in
technicalities. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

54. As stated above the petitioner’s Notice of Appeal with attached

Memorandum of Appeal was perfected beyond reglementary period
due to the negligence of Hearing and Investigation Division of PRC
staff who sent a copy of public respondent’s decision dated June 23, 2015
and Hearing Officer who keep the record of the case of origin.

55. It is humbly submitted that while a court can dismiss an appeal based
on technicality, the real test for the exercise of such power is whether,
under the circumstances, appellant is chargeable with want of due
diligence in failing to file his appeal within the prescribed period within
which to file an appeal. In the absence of a wanton failure to observe the
mandatory requirement of the rules on the part of the appellant, as in
the case at bar, courts should be decided based on merits.

56. A perusal of the assailed Decision would show that it failed to consider
the fact that the private Respondent herself admitted to the
wrongdoings claimed by the petitioner. It is undisputed that much is
expected from persons who practice the profession of Guidance
Counseling considering the sensitivity of the nature of their profession
wherein they deal with the lives, more specifically the emotional and
mental state, of other persons. As such, the degree of care on how they
handle their profession must be higher than any other profession.
 57. In the instant case, not only did the private respondent violate the
ethical standards expected of a guidance counselor which would be
illuminated further in the latter part of this discussion, she also admitted
of some acts which are unbecoming of any professional, much more of a
guidance counselor.

58. In the case at bar, the private respondent ADMITTED the EXISTENCE
of her malicious letter20 address to the Security Officer dated November
9, 2009 during the direct testimony of the petitioner. It is without dispute
that in the said letter, the private respondent wrote the Security Officer
of University of Perpetual Help Rizal, copy thereof was furnished to the
School Director, Human Resource Department, and Student Personnel
Services, with the following statements:

“a DANGEROUS PERSON, based from the Results

of the Counseling Intervention conducted to him
and my diagnosis he is suffering from Paranoia. He is
having paranoid personality disorder and Schizoid
Personality Disorder. This person has tendency to
plead and cry just to enter the premises of our school
and pose as a different person, uses different
aliases/names and presents several identification
cards. He has difficulty managing and regulating his
anger and might exhibit aggression.” (Emphasis
supplied)

59. It is worthy to mention that the sheer examination of the malicious letter
of Dr. Palac dated November 9, 2009 and the notarized letter of the
witnesses21 of the private respondent in the unjust vexation case that she
filed against the petitioner which she also submitted as part of her
evidences in this case reveals that the petitioner entered the premises of
UPHR the latter introduced his real name and there is a peaceful

20 A copy of Dr. Cleofe C. Palac letter dated November , 2009 address to the Security Officer of University of Perpetual Help is hereby
attached as Annex “Q”

21 A copy of Ms. Marikit Alberto and _________ notarized letters dated ________ address to Dr. Cleofe C. Palac is hereby attached as
Annex “R” and Annex “S” respectively.
 conversation between him and the staffs and administrators of UPHR.
Thus, it is very clear that the private respondent mentioned in the
aforestated document that “This person has tendency to plead and cry
just to enter the premises of our school and pose as a different person,
uses different aliases/names and presents several identification cards.”
is a BLATANT LIE for her to have sufficient basis to prohibit Mr. Flores
in entering the premises of UPHR.

60. It need not be elaborated that the respondent’s action in itself is worthy
of having her name being stricken off in the roll of Registered Guidance
and Counselor. There was no basis for her diagnosis and it was not even
verified whether such diagnosis was correct. Further, she had no right to
disseminate such claims because it seeks to destroy the reputation of the
petitioner. If the entire history of the case is to be revisited, it would
show that the petitioner was only subjected to counseling because the
private respondent claimed he had unusual behavior. Never did the
petitioner agree that he be tested for any diagnosis. In fact, it is mind-
boggling how the private respondent was able to attain such diagnosis
when she herself did not administer any test on the petitioner.

61. During the cross-examination of the private respondent, she

ADMITTED that her diagnosis of the petitioner was only based on the
reports made by the five counselors she assigned to the petitioner.
When confronted what kind of tests were administered to the petitioner
the private respondent answered that she did not administer any and
merely relied on reports. It does not take much to realize that the private
respondent committed grave error when she made a diagnosis without
having a one on one session with the petitioner and not having
administered a single test on him. Thus, it is very clear that the former’s
diagnosis to the latter IS FALSIFIED so that the former Vice-President
for Student Affairs will have sufficient basis to EXCLUDE as Student
Assistant of Adamson University Placement Office, under the umbrella
of Guidance Office wherein she is the Guidance Director during that
 time.

62. Further, the respondent-appellee Dr. Cleofe Palac VIOLATED several

ethical guidelines, to wit:

1. ETHICAL PRINCIPLE 1. RESPECTING HUMAN

RIGHTS AND DIGNITY. Contrary to the accusation of
the respondent that the complainant was selling food,
the truth of the matter was he was cooking food from
the collected contributions of several SA’s, Guidance
Counselors and employees of the university to buy
ingredients and cook their favorite menu in his
boarding house, everyday from June & July, which
would also give him his privilege of free food daily.
Since the complainant had to bring food daily in
kitchen utensils, the respondent clamored that he
made the school appeared “barriotic”, especially to
foreigner students. Please see attached letter of Dr.
Cleofe Palac address to the President of Adamson
University dated August 4, 2008 and paragraph 4,
page 4 of the letter of Dr. Cleofe Palac address to the
Vice-President for Student Affairs of Adamson
University.

2. This accusation is simultaneously a violation of

Chapter 1 Professional Responsibility, #7 on
Sensitivity to Diversity, which states, “Counselors
recognize and respect client’s diversity in terms of
religion, race, culture, ethnicity, gender, sexual
orientation, education and socio-economic status.”
Since the complainant was an orphan who was left to
support himself both economically and educationally,
he accepted the offer of the employees that he cooked
their food so he can be spared from food expenses,
which he tried hard to produce from his meager
salary as an SA. Please see attached letter of Dr.
Cleofe Palac address to the President of Adamson
University dated August 4, 2008 and letter of Dr.
Cleofe Palac address to the Vice-President for Student
Affairs of Adamson University.

3. ETHICAL PRINCIPLE 2.RESPECT FOR THE CLIENT’S

RIGHT TO BE SELF-GOVERNING. Contrary to the client’s
right to decide for himself whether to ask for
counseling or not, the respondent manipulated the
OSAS Director (Ms. Alice Quilicot) and the VPSA (Fr.
Francisco Magnaye, Jr.) to mandate the complainant
to undergo a thorough counseling for two months
(August & September) under five counselors, whom
she picked out from several other counselors under
her supervision. Please see attached letter of Dr.
Cleofe Palac address to the Vice-President for Student
Affairs of Adamson University.

4. This act of assigning five counselors to one

counselee is also a violation of Chapter 2,Professional
Responsibility #10, Multiple Helpers, which states,
“If, after entering a counseling relationship, a
counselor discovers the client is already in a
counseling relationship then, the counselor is
responsible for discussing the issues related to
continuing or terminating counseling with the
client. It maybe necessary, with client consent, to
discuss these issues with the other helper.”In this
context, one of the five assigned counselors (Mr. Celso
Mangaoil, Jr.) wrote a letter to Dr. Palac, the
respondent reminding her that assigning five
counselors to one client is un-ethical.
However, the respondent justified to Mr. Mangaoil
that assigning five counselors is her way of honing
the counselors’ skills and introducing her concept of
“interdisciplinary approach” in handling clients.
However, in the history of counseling, there is no
such thing as interdisciplinary approach, besides the
fact that five counselors cannot be considered
interdisciplinary for they all belong to one discipline-
“Counseling”. The appropriate term she should have
used would be “multiple-approach” in counseling
since counseling has various approaches like
Rogerian, Freudian, Gestalt, etc.

5. Welfare of the Subjects. Chapter 7, No.

3.“Counselors are responsible for the welfare of the
subjects through the research and must take all
reasonable precaution to avoid causing injury in
terms of physical, psychological, or social effects on
their subjects.”While Dr. Palac was experimenting on
her self-made “Interdisciplinary approach” manner of
handling a client which she wants to mentor to her
supervised counselors, she made the complainant her
“Guinea pig” or “experimental subject”, which is a
human rights violation, where humans are being
subjected for experimentation. As such, she became
unsuccessful because the complainant had an over-
dose of counseling sessions (not less than 200 hours
for the 2 months counseling) resulting to his lowering
of academic grades and lost of appetite for studying.
Moreover, the client, Mr. Flores became indignant to
her diagnosis of him without a single psychological
test administered to him.

6. Chapter VII, # 7: “Reporting Accurate

Results. “Counselors conduct, report and make
thorough discussion of research with accuracy and
avoid bias and misleading results.”While the
complainant was the “experimental subject” in the
“interdisciplinary counseling approach” of the
respondent, she recommended that the complainant
be given a battery of psychological tests after her
diagnosis. By doing so, she showed her incompetence
as a clinical counseling psychologist where her
diagnosis came before the testing, rather than after it.
This again is another violation of Chapter VII, as well
as shows that she was not sincerely doing
professional clinical practice with the complainant but
was using her craft to discriminate, to eject out and
manipulate the people under her department,
particularly, an SA under the Placement office in the
person of the complainant, Mr. Mariano Flores, as
well as manipulating the counselors under her for the
purpose of terminating the complainant.

7. ACCESS TO RECORDS. CHAPTER II- ON

COUNSELING RELATIONSHIP, #5. This states that
“Counselors understand that clients have the right
to access their counseling records. Disclosure of
such information to others is possible only through
the clients informed consent or when required by
law.”After the two months counseling sessions with
the four counselors were mandated by the respondent
to come up with a Case Report each of Mr. Flores, the
complainant. Mr. Flores first requested his four
counselors a copy of the case report they made.
However, they refused on the grounds, that he should
ask permission from Dr. Palac to avoid administrative
sanction from her. Based on that suggestion, the
complainant requested the respondent to furnish him
with a copy of his Case Reports by the four
counselors to which the respondent refused by not
furnishing him a copy, which is a clear violation of
this Ethical provision.

8. CONFIDENTIALITY – CHAPTER II, # 2, of the

Code states “The counselor must preserve and
safeguard the confidentiality of the clients except:

2.1. When disclosure is required to prevent clear and

imminent danger to the CLIENT or OTHERS;In this
provision, the respondent, Dr. Palac made a
Diagnostic Report to the VPSA about the
complainant, Mr. Flores, which she based from the
“incompetent counselors’ case reports and her own
“subjective judgments” and even distributed copies
of the same diagnostic report to various offices of the
University of Perpetual Help System-DALTA, such as
the security Office, the Student and Personnel
Services Office, HR Office and the School
Administrator’s Office, stating that Mr. Flores is a
dangerous person suffering from Paranoid
Personality Disorder and Schizoid Personality
Disorder, when in fact, such diagnosis has no basis
from any psychological tool or test. Moreover, the
ethical provision did not stipulate that the counselor
may disclose to prevent imminent danger to the
counselor, but rather to the client or to others, to
which Dr. Palac suspects danger for herself and her
reputation. This shows clearly that the Clinical
Counseling Psychologist Dr. Palac does not
understand the Ethics of the PGCA despite her many
years of alleged practice in her profession.

2.2. When legal requirements demand that

confidential matter be revealed; This ethical
provision was violated by the respondent in
submitting her diagnostic report to the Legal
Department Office of the PRC, the Las Pinas
Prosecutor’s Office and Metropolitan Trial Court of
Las Pinas, without having been issued a subpoena
duces tecum by the offices aforementioned. Again,
this violation showed the ignorance and the lack of
sufficient understanding of the ethics of her
profession as clinical counseling psychologist, which
she attested to have labored so hard to earn at her
sacrifice of not caring enough for her dying father to
finish her doctorate degree.

9. General Responsibility – Chapter IV, No. 1.

“Counselors maintain harmoniousworking
relationships with other professionals in their
setting and affiliated organizations.This ethical
provision was also violated by the respondent while
working at Adamson University (last A.Y. 2008-2009),
wherein she had various conflicts like with student
assistant Mariano Flores and guidance counselors.
Moreover, when she transferred to work as Corporate
Guidance Director of the University of Perpetual Help
System DALTA (last A.Y. 2009-2010), she also got into
various conflicts with the peer counselors and other
staff.

10. Supervisory Relationships. “Counselors in

supervisory position foster good working
relationships and treat all colleagues fairly.” While
working as the Guidance Director of Adamson
University, the respondent did not only discriminate
the complainant as “barriotic” (please see attached
Annex “F”), “bobo”, “tanga” (page 57, Transcript of
Stenographer Notes dated June 8, 2012), but also
caused so much havoc among the counselors under
her supervision, due to her bias treatment to them,
which was attested by the complainant himself, when
he was asked to write an incidental report against one
counselor (Ms. Lorelli Cabanela, whom she called
mentally sick and recommended for mandatory
counseling), and to which the complainant did not
follow, which also caused her great animosity to the
him. Moreover, she also asked several SA’s (student
assistants) under her office to write incidental reports
against some counselors instead of asking them to
come for dialogue or consultation to manage
conflicting relationships among them. This strategy of
conflict management shows unfair treatment and did
not foster good working relationships among her
colleagues, a clear violation of another ethical
provision.

11. Dual Relationships. Chapter II, Nos.6.

“Counselors avoid personal, familial, and or
business relationships with clients that may
jeopardize this Code of Ethics.” Before the
complainant became an indirect supervised counselee
(counseled by the respondent’s supervised
counselors) of the respondent, he was an indirect
subordinate of the respondent in a working
relationship, where their personal conflict started,
since the respondent refused to sign his attendance
sheet in lieu of Ms. Susan Mondano who was the
complainant’s direct supervisor but was hospitalized.
In an effort to evict him out of the Guidance
Department for the reasons of personal dislike for the
complainant in his “cooking activities”, the
respondent used her position as Guidance Director
and made use of the counseling practice to fulfill her
plan. As such, she did not have the original intention
to counsel for the “best interest of the client” (who is
the complainant) but to the detriment of the client, the
complainant.

12. Keeping Trust. (Standards of Good Practice

in Guidance & Counseling, Chapter III, Nos. 9-11.)
“The practice of Guidance & Counseling depends
on gaining and honoring the trust of clients.
Keeping trust requires an attentiveness to the
quality of listening and respect offered to client,
culturally appropriate ways of communicating that
are courteous and clear, maintaining respect for
privacy and dignity and careful attention to client’s
consent and confidentiality.” In violation to this
standard, the respondent would stop the complainant
from expressing his feelings and views during their
counseling session (once a week) on the reason that
since he had his chance of airing himself to the four
counselors assigned to him, his duty is only to listen
to her, and not to talk. Moreover, she verbally abused
the complainant by calling him “bobo”, “tanga” and
“mentally sick” and would point her fingers to him in
her outraged responses to him, due to her belief that
the complainant spread rumors against her within the
university as a reaction to being forced into
counseling. This last scenario is a violation of No. 11,
“Practitioners should ensure that services are
normally delivered on the basis of the client’s
explicit consent.” The fact of the case was that the
complainant was forced into a mandatory counseling.

SUMMARY:

The case is between a working student

(complainant) and his indirect supervisor, a professional
Counseling Psychologist (respondent) working in one
department. The respondent had a clear discrimination
against the complainant by virtue of his socio-economic
status, as a poor orphan, surviving through mere cooking of
food for his co-workers in the office and working for a free
education with a minimal allowance as a student assistant.
While the practice of the complainant to bring cooked food
for some co-workers was tolerated by the Adamson
community, a school with a special mission for the under-
privileged, the newly hired Guidance Director thought of it
as “barriotic”, to which she wanted drastic change to
happen, thinking that her opponent is just a poor and mere
working student. Making use of her position as Guidance
Director, she pushed her request of replacing the
complainant with another SA, and even wanted a “No SA
Policy for her entire department”. Having to face
opposition with the OSAS Director (Miss Alice Quilicot),
the direct boss of the complainant, since she refused the
request of the respondent, the latter used the counseling
profession to manipulate the decision of the OSAS Director
to her original request. To settle the covert administrative
conflict, the VPSA (Fr. Magnaye, Jr.) and the OSAS
Director conceded to the proposal of the respondent to have
the complainant undergo a mandatory counseling to
determine his fitness to continue his status as an SA of the
Placement Office (under the Guidance Department).

In violation of the Code of Ethics and

Standards of Good Practice of the PGCA, the
respondent did not explain the nature of her
unknown “interdisciplinary approach” to the
complainant, whom she wanted to use as her
 “experimental subject”, while using counseling
supervision to four counselors under her to handle
the complainant with the objective of spotting out the
most competent counselor with a promised award to
the best case report they would submit to her.
Moreover, the respondent violated twelve ethical
guidelines of the same Code of Ethics for Counselors,
enumerated above. As a result the complainant got
an overdose of counter-therapeutic counseling
sessions, conducted by four different “incompetent”
counselors, as well as the respondent herself, which
made him lose his interest in his studies evidenced by
his lowered grades for the 2nd semester of A.Y. 2008-
2009. Although the complainant returned to his job as
an SA after the termination of the respondent from
her work as Guidance Director, having been into
conflict with several other personnel in the Adamson
University, the respondent initiated their conflict
outside the university when she maliciously called
the landlady of the complainant with threats of filing
a case against him and wanted the landlady’s
collaboration. Virtually, the respondent was making
the complainant her emotional trashcan, (as the
complainant was always in this role of being his
family’s emotional trashcan since he was small) and
wanted to intimidate him as the scapegoat of her
conflicting experiences with Adamson University
where she felt rejected by her counselors who
petitioned her termination. (Case Analysis prepared
by Ms. Ana Bellusa M. Pellejo, RGC)

61. Thus, it is without any argument that the totality of the actions done by
the private respondent should have warranted a penalty of cancellation
of her license as Registered Guidance Counselor. A penalty of
Reprimand is a very light penalty to be given considering the weight of
the transgressions committed by the private respondent which are
clearly actions unbecoming of a person licensed to be a Guidance
Counselor. Having her walk away with such a light penalty for her acts
would be like just a slap on the wrist which is not commensurate with
the gravity of her acts. It is thus the humble opinion of the petitioner that
the Board of Guidance and Counseling should re-visit its decision for if
they would, they would realize that the private respondent deserved a
 penalty of cancellation of license.

62. It is a cardinal rule that in whatever kind of hearing, be it Judicial, Non-

Judicial, Quasi-Judicial, or Administrative, that all decisions rendered
must be based on all pieces of evidence presented. All pieces of evidence
must be weighed and considered. As such, there should not be a piece of
evidence which was presented that would be left untouched. This is in
Consonance with the ruling of the Supreme Court of the Philippines in
the case of Department of Health v. Camposano which restated the
guidelines laid down in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations which
stated that:

Department of Health v. Camposanorestates the

guidelines laid down in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial
Relations that due process in administrative
proceedings requires compliance with the following
cardinal principles: (1) the respondents’ right to a
hearing, which includes the right to present one’s case
and submit supporting evidence, must be observed;
(2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
(3) the decision must have some basis to support
itself; (4) there must be substantial evidence; (5) the
decision must be rendered on the evidence
presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the
record and disclosed to the parties affected; (6) in
arriving at a decision, the tribunal must have acted on
its own consideration of the law and the facts of the
controversy and must not have simply accepted the
views of a subordinate; and (7) the decision must be
rendered in such manner that respondents would
know the reasons for it and the various issues
involved.

63. With all due respect, the public respondent in rendering its Decision
committed grave error when it seemed to leave out some pieces of
evidence which if properly considered would have swayed the public
respondent to render a penalty of Suspension or Cancellation of License
of the private respondent and not just a mere reprimand. In the
preceding discussions, the petitioner had already highlighted some of
the material evidence seemed to have been left out by the public
 respondent which even taken individually would have resulted to a
penalty higher than reprimand. Much more in its totality which clearly
shows that all the transgressions of the private respondent when
everything is added up is so grave that a penalty of reprimand is too
light to even be considered. In addition to this, there were some key
evidences that were not considered properly by the public respondent.

64. First, a thorough review of the records would clearly show that the
credibility of the petitioner was not destroyed by the private respondent
during his cross-examination. The private respondent did not even come
close to debunking the credibility and the truthfulness of the facts stated
by the petitioner when he testified. This is very vital considering that it
is during the direct testimony of the petitioner in which he elaborated
the wrong acts committed by the private respondent which
unfortunately where not included in his complaint-affidavit considering
that the petitioner himself prepared the complaint without any
assistance of counsel. Despite all of this, the petitioner still testified and
clearly stated the transgressions of the private respondent and how this
affected him. Being part of the record, the additional claims of the
petitioner should have been considered by the public respondent and
not just brushed aside just because it was not part of the complaint. In all
hearings, it is expected that a number of instances could be raised
during the testimony itself for it is only to be expected that in drafting
the complaint some may have been missed out especially when it was
prepared not by a lawyer. This is also the very reason why the adverse
party, the private respondent in this case, is given the opportunity to
conduct cross-examination, in order to ensure that due process and the
opportunity to face the accuser is afforded to the private respondent.
Thus, his testimony is a sufficient evidence to prove all his allegations
on his complaint-affidavit.

65. Moreover, the petitioner begs to disagree with the findings of the public
respondent that he consented with the counseling. There is a mountain
 of difference between voluntarily agreeing to something and being
forced to agree while staring at the barrel of a gun. The counseling was
forced upon by the private respondent upon the throat of the petitioner.
During the direct testimony of the private respondent, she readily
admitted that she decided on her own that the petitioner should
undergo counseling instead of working for five hours. The premise that
it was proposed first before VPSA Fr. Magnaye is misleading. There was
never a proposal but a recommendation which would never have been
overturned in the first place. Be it as it may, even if it is to be accepted
that the counseling was greenlighted by the school, it is the public
respondent and not the private respondent or the school who is well
versed in the intricacies of Guidance Counseling. It is undisputed that
going through the entire record of the case, the private respondent have
not presented or have given an acceptable reason that warranted the
order to have the petitioner undergo counseling sessions and for it to be
conducted by five counselors at that. It is clear that the private
respondent targeted specifically the petitioner because not a single piece
of evidence was shown that this was regularly done by the school. In
fact, the private respondent have never presented any proof that before
she subjected the petitioner to counseling and before the school
greenlighted the counseling that the petitioner’s parents or guardian was
informed about this. The fact that the petitioner is of age is of no
moment since he is still under the care of the school which ultimately
must work hand in hand with students’ parents.

66. Moreover, it can be gleaned from the record of the case that the private
respondent, during her direct testimony, ADMITTED that she called the
petitioner “bobo and tanga”. And it can also be gleaned from the record
of the case that the private respondent called the petitioner “barriotic”,
particularly the letter of the private respondent address to the Vice-
President for Student Affairs of Adamson University. When cross-
examined, the private respondent admitted that she did in fact used the
 term “barriotic” in referring to the petitioner. The petitioner humbly
believes that presentation of evidence is no longer necessary to prove
such fact when it came out of the mouth of the private respondent
during her testimony on direct and even on cross-examination which
sadly was never referred to in the entire decision of the case.

67. Also, the petitioner humbly disagrees with the finding of the public
respondent that the petitioner admitted that the term “mentally sick”
was not used against him. With all due respect, the petitioner humbly
asks this Honorable Court to re-visit the transcript of the testimony of
the petitioner. What actually happened was that the petitioner was
asked whether he just assumed that the private respondent called him
mentally sick because he read in the report of Recelyn Arayata the term
“kagalingan ng pag-iisip” to which the petitioner answered in the
negative. There was never an admission on the part of the petitioner that
the term mentally sick was never used against him by the private
respondent because he heard it numerous times. As such, the petitioner
feels that the decision of the public respondent does not reflect what
actually happened during the hearings of the case.

68. Further, just to inform this Honorable Court, the private respondent
ADMITTED in the case that she filed against Ms. Ana Bellusa Pellejo,
RGC before the same Board that in the practice of psychological
assessment it is presupposed that the counselor is not around to
witness the experiences of the persons who underwent psychological
evaluation.xxx andthe document is the best evidence. Hence, all the
narration of the violation of the Code of Ethics of the private respondent
stated in the Psychological Analysis of the petitioner should be given
credence.

69. Thus, with all the pieces of evidence and material points raised by the
petitioner in his instant Memorandum of Appeal and which seemed to
have been left out or not even considered by the public respondent in
 rendering its decision, it is the humble belief of the petitioner that the
tenets laid down in the case of Ang Tibay were not followed and as
such due processes was not afforded to the petitioner. This being the
case, it is also the humble belief of the petitioner that considering that
the decision was rendered without or lack of due process then it is
still high time for the petitioner to question the validity of the
Decision itself and the penalty meted out to the respondent. This
belief of the petitioner finds support in the case of Apo Cement
Corporation vs. Mingson Mining Industries Corporation G.R. No. 2006728,
November 12, 2014. In the said case it was stated that:

“xxx an apparent lack of due process may be raised

by a party at any time since due process is a
jurisdictional requisite that all tribunals, whether
administrative or judicial, are duty bound to observe.
In Salva v. Valle, the Court pronounced that
"[a]decision rendered without due process is void ab
initio and may be attacked at any time directly or
collaterally by means of a separate action, or by
resisting such decision in any action or proceeding
where it is invoked."xxx22

Such wanton disregard of the

petitioner’s situation, effectively depriving the
petitioner’s right to due process, is clearly a
grave abuse of discretion, a capricious or
whimsical exercise of judgment as is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of
discretion is so patent and gross as to amount
to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual

22 Footnote 3.
 refusal to perform a duty imposed by law, or
to act in contemplation of law or where the
power is exercised in an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion and
hostility23

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court that the instant Petition for Certiorari be given DUE
COURSE and, after consideration thereof, that the order dated
_____________ and letter dated April 01, 2019 be REVERSED and SET
ASIDE.

Other reliefs just and equitable are equally prayed for.

Manila Philippines, May 6, 2019

MARIANO P. FLORES
(Petitioner)

Republic of the Philippines)

City of Manila ) S.S.

VERIFICATION
WITH

CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

23 VILLAREAL V. ALIGA, G.R. NO. 166995 (19 JUNE 2014).

 I, MARIANO P. FLORES of legal age and Filipino and
currently residing at Unit 112 Bldg. 6, C-5 MRB Condominium, Barangay
Ususan, Taguig City, under oath depose and say that:

1. That I am the Petitioner in the above entitled case;

2. That I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Petition
for Certiorari;

3. I have read and fully understood the contents thereof and affirm that
the factual statements therein made are true and correct to the best of
my own personal knowledge and belief;

4. I have filed or commenced an action involving the same parties before

the Board of Psychology of the Professional Regulations Commission
and such is still pending as of the filing of this Memorandum of
Appeal;

5. That I have not commenced any other court action or proceedings

involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency aside from the case
mentioned in the preceding paragraph. To the best of my knowledge,
no such action or proceedings is pending in the Supreme Court, Court
of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency; If I should learn thereafter
that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending aside
from the case mentioned in the preceding paragraph, I hereby
undertake to report the same fact within five (5) days therefrom to the
court or agency wherein the original pleading and sworn certification
contemplated herein have been filed.
 IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature
this 10th day of May 2019 at City of Manila, Philippines

MARIANO P. FLORES
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORNto before me by affiant who appeared

before me and exhibited to me his Unified Multi-Purpose Identification
Card with CRN-0111-0346084-7 bearing the photograph and signature of
the affiant issued by the Republic of the Philippines, this 10th day of May
2019 in the City of Manila, Philippines.

Notary Public

Doc. No. ___;

Page No. ___;
Book No. ___;
Series of 201.

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court)

Service of this Petition for Certiorari was made on the private

respondent via registered mail instead of personal service due to distance,
time and manpower constraints.

MARIANO P. FLORES
Copy furnished:

CLEOFE C. PALAC; PhD,RGC

Block 5B Lot 4
Kalayaan Village, Pasay City

BOARD OF GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING