Case Summary (G.R. No. 227911)
Applicable Law and Governing Rules
The UP Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Fraternities, Sororities, and Other Student Organizations (1995) require under Section 1, Rule III that no member or officer be formally charged unless “a preliminary inquiry has been conducted by any member of the SDT,” to be completed within five working days of complaint filing. Section 7, Rule IV bars motions for reconsideration of SDT rulings.
Factual Background
On September 28, 2007, UP filed seven formal charges against Ante and three co-respondents, accusing them of administering hazing rites, abandoning Mendez in the hospital, and refusing to comply with UP’s directives. Ante requested production of evidence, information on SDT members and jury selection, and sought to quash the charges for lack of a valid preliminary inquiry and alleged prejudgment by SDT.
Procedural History Before the Regional Trial Court
SDT denied Ante’s discovery requests and omnibus motion to quash on January 23, 2008, rejecting his verbal request for reconsideration. On March 6, 2008, Ante filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the RTC of Quezon City. The RTC, by Decision dated November 19, 2009, found grave abuse of discretion by SDT, nullified all related proceedings, and declared the formal charges void.
Reversal by the Court of Appeals
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on October 6, 2015 reversed the RTC. The CA held the preliminary inquiry validly “conducted by” SDT, interpreting “by” to mean “through the means, act, agency, or instrumentality” of any tribunal member. It also found no evidence of prejudgment or due process breach. A September 27, 2016 CA resolution denied Ante’s motion for reconsideration, prompting the present petition.
Issues for Supreme Court Review
- Whether Ante’s petition for certiorari and prohibition was the proper remedy after SDT’s interlocutory denial.
- Whether the SDT preliminary inquiry complied with Section 1, Rule III of the UP rules.
- Whether SDT’s finding of a prima facie case constituted prejudgment in violation of due process.
Propriety of the Certiorari Petition
The Supreme Court held that certiorari is inappropriate where a “plain, speedy, and adequate remedy” exists. Ante’s proper remedy against denial of a quashal motion was to proceed to formal hearings, not to seek certiorari. Although SDT rules prohibited written motions for reconsideration, the petition should nonetheless have been dismissed for lack of necessity.
Validity of the Preliminary Inquiry
The Court agreed with the CA that describing the inquiries as held “before” SDT presumes active participation by tribunal members. It rejected a strict dichotomy between “by” and “before,” noting that procedural rules often use these terms interchangeably without altering substance. The University Prosecutor’s inquiry, conducted in the presence and by the authority of SDT members, satisfied the requirement.
Rejection of the Prejudgment Claim
Ante’s argument that SDT’s prima facie finding amounted to prejudgment was premature and unsupported. Under Guzman v. National University, due process in student disci
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 227911)
Factual Background
- Seven formal charges were filed on September 28, 2007 by UP’s Student Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) against petitioner Ante and three co-accused (Veloso, Dela Cruz, Sapitan) in connection with the alleged hazing-related death of Chris Anthony Mendez.
- The charges alleged participation in hazing/initiation rites, abandoning Mendez in the hospital, failure to furnish information to authorities, and non-compliance with directives from UP’s Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs.
- Ante filed an answer requesting production of documents, identification of two SDT members and their selection process, and other evidence on which the charges were based.
SDT Proceedings and Omnibus Motion
- SDT denied in separate orders Ante’s motions for documents, information on tribunal members, and jury selection details.
- On November 20, 2007, Ante (with co-accused) filed an omnibus motion to quash the formal charges and declare all proceedings void for lack of a valid preliminary inquiry, and to inhibit SDT members for prejudgment.
- SDT, in a January 23, 2008 order, denied the omnibus motion, holding that:
• A preliminary inquiry conducted “before” the SDT by any of its members satisfied Section 1, Rule III of the Rules Governing Fraternities.
• The term “by” includes acts “through the means, act, agency or instrumentality” of any SDT member.
• No prejudice or prejudgment occurred; formal charges merely summoned defendants to present defenses. - Ante’s verbal motion for reconsideration was likewise denied; co-accused did not move for reconsideration.
Petition Before the Regional Trial Court
- On March 6, 2008, Ante filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Quezon City RTC, assailing SDT’s denial of his omnibus motion on grounds of invalid preliminary inquiry, denial of due process, and prejudgment.
RTC Decision
- In a November 19, 2009 decision, the RTC granted Ante’s petition, finding grave abuse of discretion by SDT.
- The RTC held that the preliminary inquiry was invalid because it was conducted by the University Prosecutor and not by an SDT member, in violation of Section 1, Rule III of the Rules Go