G.R. No. 227911. March 14, 2022
ARIEL PAOLO A. ANTE, PETITIONER, VS. UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES STUDENT DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL AND UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The case stemmed from seven disciplinary actions filed by the University of the Philippines (UP) before its Student Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) against petitioner Ariel Paolo A. Ante and others, prompted by the death of Chris Anthony Mendez allegedly due to hazing by the Sigma Rho Fraternity. The formal charges accused them of participating in hazing, leaving Mendez at the hospital, and failing to provide information to authorities and UP officials. Ante filed an answer and requested documents, which the SDT denied. Ante then filed an omnibus motion seeking to quash the formal charges, arguing the preliminary inquiry was invalid because it was not conducted “by any member of the Tribunal” as required by Section 1, Rule III of the UP Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Fraternities, Sororities, and other Student Organizations. He also sought the inhibition of SDT members for alleged prejudgment. The SDT denied the motion, interpreting the word “by” to mean “through the means, act, agency, or instrumentality” of any member, and stated that members were present during the inquiry. Ante filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, which nullified the SDT proceedings, finding the preliminary inquiry was conducted by the University Prosecutor, not the SDT. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, holding the preliminary inquiry was validly conducted by the SDT members. Ante elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Was the preliminary inquiry conducted by the SDT valid?
2. Is the SDT guilty of prejudging the case against Ante, thereby violating his right to due process?

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the CA Decision and Resolution.
1. On the validity of the preliminary inquiry: The Court held that the preliminary inquiry was valid. It interpreted the phrase “by any member of the Tribunal” in the Rules Governing Fraternities to mean that the inquiry is conducted by the SDT as a body, through its members. The Court agreed with the CA that when the preliminary inquiries were conducted on September 4 and 12, 2007, “before the members of the Tribunal,” the entire Tribunal, comprised of each member acting collectively, conducted the inquiry. An official act of the Tribunal is an act performed by each of its members. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the SDT’s interpretation and conduct of the preliminary inquiry.
2. On the claim of prejudgment and violation of due process: The Court held that Ante’s claim of prejudgment was bare and speculative, unsupported by evidence. The SDT’s act of issuing formal charges was a procedural step to summon Ante so his defenses could be heard and evidence evaluated, not an indication of prejudgment. The Court found no violation of Ante’s right to due process.
The Court also addressed procedural matters, noting that while Ante’s filing of a petition for certiorari before the RTC was procedurally infirm (due to failure to file a written motion for reconsideration of the SDT’s denial of his omnibus motion, a condition sine qua non for certiorari), it chose to resolve the substantive issues. However, it emphasized that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and should not be used to delay proceedings where a more exhaustive adjudication can be had in the main case.