Arimao v. Taher
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a dispute over the position of Education Supervisor II within the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). Petitioner Andabai T. Arimao was initially appointed as Director II, Bureau of Non-formal Education, DECS-ARMM, on March 22, 1995. Her appointment was protested and subsequently disapproved by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) for failing to meet experience requirements, leading to her reversion to Education Supervisor II. Respondent Saadea P. Taher was appointed Education Supervisor II on July 17, 1995. Petitioner later took an academic scholarship with pay from October 1996 to October 1997. Upon her return, a dispute arose regarding who occupied the Education Supervisor II position, with respondent initially being enjoined from reporting to work. Procedural History: Petitioner's appointment as Director II was ultimately disapproved by the CSC, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, respondent occupied the Education Supervisor II position. A complaint regarding petitioner's absence led to her being declared Absent Without Leave (AWOL) and dropped from the payroll by the ARMM Executive Secretary on December 24, 1998, which was affirmed by the ARMM Regional Governor. Petitioner appealed this decision, but her appeal was denied. Subsequently, on July 20, 2000, the Acting Regional Governor ordered petitioner to reassume her former position and revoked the AWOL declaration. However, this was immediately followed by a Memorandum on August 1, 2000, directing the maintenance of the status quo for respondent. On August 4, 2000, ARMM Regional Governor Misuari issued a Memorandum ordering petitioner's reinstatement. Respondent filed a Petition for Prohibition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to enjoin the implementation of this Memorandum. The RTC granted the injunction and, in its Decision and Order, ruled that the Governor's Memorandum could not be implemented as it relied on superseded CSC resolutions and that the controversy fell under the CSC's exclusive jurisdiction. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the RTC's Decision and Order, arguing that a writ of prohibition was improperly issued to enjoin the ARMM Governor's directive to reinstate her. She contends the trial court erred in taking cognizance of the petition and violated the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, as the case involved personnel actions within the CSC's exclusive domain. Petitioner further argues that the disapproval of her promotional appointment invalidated respondent's appointment, automatically restoring both to their former positions. She also asserts that the AWOL order was previously revoked and that the specific position for which she was declared AWOL was unclear. The core of her petition is that the RTC should not have interfered with the ARMM Governor's implementation of a CSC Resolution reinstating her, and that the RTC's ruling effectively disregarded the CSC's authority and the finality of its own resolutions.
Issue(s)
Whether a writ of prohibition lies to enjoin the directive of the ARMM Governor to reinstate petitioner to the position of Education Supervisor II despite petitioner's having been declared on AWOL and dropped from the roll. Whether the trial court erred in taking cognizance of the petition for prohibition and whether the filing of the petition for prohibition violated the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Whether the AWOL order against petitioner validated respondent's occupancy of the position of Education Supervisor II, and the effect of the disapproval of petitioner's promotional appointment on respondent's appointment. Who, as between petitioner and respondent, is entitled to the position of Education Supervisor II, considering the AWOL order, the disapproval of petitioner's promotional appointment, and respondent's occupancy.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision and Order dated October 16, 2001, and January 31, 2002, respectively, of the RTC, 12th Judicial Region, Branch 14 are AFFIRMED. Respondent is ordered to VACATE the position of Education Supervisor II, TESDA-ARMM, and turn over to petitioner the emoluments she received for the position from October 17, 1998, to March 17, 1999. Costs against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the writ of prohibition and the trial court's jurisdiction: The trial court did not err in taking cognizance of the petition for prohibition. A writ of prohibition is directed against a tribunal, corporation, board, or person exercising judicial or ministerial functions who has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and for which there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The ARMM Regional Governor, in ordering the reinstatement of petitioner based on an outdated CSC Resolution despite her being declared AWOL and dropped from the rolls, acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not apply when the issue raised is a purely legal question, which is within the competence of the courts. In this case, the question of whether the ARMM Governor's memorandum exceeded his jurisdiction was a legal question for the court to resolve. Furthermore, allowing the matter to remain with the ARMM Governor's office would be self-defeating and cause unnecessary delay, as conflicting issuances originated from the same office. On the effect of the AWOL order and entitlement to the position: Petitioner cannot be reinstated by a mere directive of the ARMM Regional Governor. The assailed Memorandum of ARMM Regional Governor Misuari was based on CSC Resolution No. 96-3101 and a CSC-ARMM Directive Order dated July 26, 2000, which ordained her reinstatement. However, these directives were rendered functus officio by CSC Resolution No. 020743, which stated that TESDA had no legal obligation to reinstate petitioner because she was already dropped from the rolls effective December 24, 1998. CSC Resolution No. 01-0132, ordering the implementation of CSC Resolution No. 96-3101, was issued because petitioner concealed the fact that she had been declared AWOL and dropped from the rolls. With the finality of the AWOL order and her being dropped from the rolls, petitioner legally lost her right to the position of Education Supervisor II. The argument that the AWOL order was revoked was unpersuasive, as a subsequent memorandum recalled the revocation, leaving the AWOL order in full force and effect when the August 4, 2000 Memorandum was issued. On the invalidation of respondent's appointment and the status of the position: As a chain reaction to the disapproval of petitioner's promotional appointment as Director II, respondent's appointment to Education Supervisor II was likewise invalidated. The efficacy of respondent's appointment was dependent on the validity of petitioner's promotional appointment, which was subject to the outcome of the protest against it. Thus, as of October 17, 1998, the date of finality of the denial of the petition questioning the disapproval of petitioner's appointment, both petitioner and respondent were reverted to their former positions. Petitioner should have been allowed to re-assume her position as Education Supervisor II from that date until she was dropped from the rolls. Respondent, in turn, should have been made to return to her former position. On the entitlement to the position and accounting for salaries: During respondent's occupancy of the position after petitioner's promotional appointment had been disapproved, respondent should be deemed a de facto officer. A de facto officer is one who possesses the office and discharges its duties under color of authority, even if not legally entitled. The rightful incumbent may recover from a de facto officer the salary received during the wrongful tenure. Therefore, respondent should account to petitioner for the salaries she received from October 17, 1998, to March 17, 1999. However, respondent may keep emoluments received during that period if there was no de jure officer at the time, following the ruling in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary. Respondent cannot continue her unauthorized occupancy, notwithstanding the vacancy, absent any showing of reappointment after petitioner was declared AWOL.
Main Doctrine
A memorandum ordering the reinstatement of an employee declared Absent Without Leave (AWOL) and dropped from the rolls, based on an outdated Civil Service Commission (CSC) resolution, is rendered moot and academic. The CSC, having exclusive jurisdiction over personnel actions, has the final say on such matters. Furthermore, in a chain of promotions, the disapproval of a higher appointment invalidates subsequent promotions, automatically restoring affected individuals to their former positions.