Arimao vs. Taher

Facts:

Petitioner Andabai T. Arimao was appointed Director II, Bureau of Non‑formal Education, DECS‑ARMM on 22 March 1995; respondent Saadea P. Taher was appointed Education Supervisor II on 17 July 1995. Petitioner’s promotion was protested by Alibai T. Benito and was ultimately disapproved by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Field Office for lack of required experience; on 2 May 1996 the CSC issued Resolution No. 96‑3101 ordering petitioner reverted to Education Supervisor II. Petitioner sought reconsideration; while that was pending she was granted an academic scholarship with pay effective 30 October 1996 for one year.

The CSC denied petitioner’s motions for reconsideration and the Court of Appeals denied due course to her petition; the denial became final and executory by Entry of Judgment dated 17 October 1998. By then the Education Supervisor II position had been devolved from DECS‑ARMM to TESDA‑ARMM and respondent continued to occupy the post. On 7 December 1998 respondent filed a complaint about petitioner’s absence; on 24 December 1998 the ARMM Executive Secretary, by authority of the Regional Governor, declared petitioner AWOL for failure to report for at least a year after her study leave and ordered her dropped from the payroll. Petitioner’s administrative appeal to the ARMM Regional Governor was denied by Resolution No. 001‑99 (17 March 1999).

In mid‑2000 administrative actions produced conflicting orders. On 20 July 2000 Acting Regional Governor Matalam ordered petitioner to reassume her former position and revoked the Executive Secretary’s 24 December 1998 memorandum; on 1 August 2000 he issued a memorandum directing status quo for respondent. Thereafter, on 4 August 2000 ARMM Regional Governor Nur Misuari issued a memorandum implementing CSC Resolution No. 96‑3101 and directing TESDA‑ARMM to reinstate petitioner.

Respondent filed a petition for prohibition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cotabato City, alleging no plain, speedy and adequate remedy and seeking to enjoin implementation of Governor Misuari’s 4 August 2000 memorandum; the RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction on 21 August 2000. On 16 October 2001 the RTC rendered judgment enjoining the respondents from carrying out the effects of Misuari’s memorandum on the ground that the CSC resolutions reinstating petitioner had been superseded by a CSC finding that petitioner had been dropped from the rolls and that the dispute involved personnel actions within the CSC’s exclusive competence; the RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on 31 January 2002.

While these events unfolded, petitioner sought enforcement of CSC Resolution No. 96‑3101; CSC issued Resolution No. 01‑0132 (15 January 2001) ordering implementation. Later, on 22 May 2002, the CSC issued Resolution No. 020743 addressing the ARMM Regional Solicitor General’s inquiry and concluded that CSC Resolution No. 01‑0132 had been issued because petitioner had concealed the AWOL order, and that TESDA‑ARMM had no legal obligation to reinstate petitioner because she had been separated effective 24 ...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Does a writ of prohibition lie to enjoin ARMM Governor Misuari’s memorandum ordering petitioner’s reinstatement despite petitioner’s having been declared AWOL and dropped from the rolls?
• Did the trial court err in taking cognizance of the petition for prohibition, and did the filing of that petition violate the doctrine of primary jurisdiction?
• Did the AWOL order against petitioner validate respondent’s occupancy of the position of Education Supervisor II?
• Between petitioner and respondent, who is enti...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)