G.R. No. 209283, March 11, 2015.
CECILIA RACHEL V. QUISUMBING, Petitioner, vs. LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, MA. VICTORIA V. CARDONA and NORBERTO DELA CRUZ, in their capacities as Chairperson and Members, respectively, of the COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Cecilia Rachel V. Quisumbing, a Commissioner of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), was on sick leave during a CHR meeting on September 18, 2013. In that meeting, the CHR, with Chairperson Loretta Ann P. Rosales and Commissioners Ma. Victoria V. Cardona and Norberto dela Cruz present, took up affidavits from petitioner’s former employees accusing her of various acts including maltreatment, mental abuse, taking salary cuts, forging a signature, and misconduct. Based on these, the CHR, through Chairperson Rosales, issued a Show Cause Order (Resolution CHR (IV) No. A2013-148) on the same day, directing petitioner to submit a written explanation within five days as to why she should not be held administratively liable, and to transmit this to the Office of the Ombudsman. The order cited alleged violations of civil service laws and ethical standards. Commissioner Jose Manuel S. Mamauag later concurred with the resolution. Chairperson Rosales also sent letters dated September 27, 2013, to the President and the Ombudsman, attaching the complaints and the Show Cause Order and requesting appropriate action. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the Show Cause Order with the CHR on October 4, 2013, arguing it was void for denying her due process. Without waiting for the CHR’s action on her motion, she filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Supreme Court on October 16, 2013. On October 23, 2013, the CHR issued an Order stating it could no longer act on her motion as the case had been forwarded to the Ombudsman.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the issuance of the writs of certiorari and prohibition to annul the Show Cause Order issued by the CHR.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. The Court ruled that the petition was rendered moot and academic because the CHR had already terminated its proceedings by referring the case to the Office of the Ombudsman for appropriate prosecutorial action, and thus no practical relief could be granted. On the merits, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the respondents. It held that the CHR, in issuing the Show Cause Order and referring the matter, was not exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions but was merely conducting a fact-finding investigation, which is within its constitutional power. The act of initiating an investigation and referring it to the Ombudsman is distinct from adjudication. The Court also found no denial of due process, as petitioner was given ample opportunity to present her side through the written explanation requirement, but she chose not to avail of it and instead directly sought the Court’s intervention. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to be heard, which was afforded. The petition was also deemed premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.