Title
Supreme Court
Arimao vs. Taher
Case
G.R. No. 152651
Decision Date
Aug 7, 2006
Petitioner's appointment as Director II was disapproved due to insufficient experience; declared AWOL, reinstatement attempts failed. Neither party entitled to Education Supervisor II position; respondent deemed de facto officer, must vacate and account for emoluments.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 108031)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Appointment and Protest:

  • On 22 March 1995, petitioner Andabai T. Arimao was appointed as Director II, Bureau of Non-formal Education, Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS-ARMM).
  • On 17 July 1995, respondent Saadea P. Taher was appointed Education Supervisor II.
  • Petitioner's appointment was protested by Alibai T. Benito, who claimed the appointment did not pass through the personnel selection board. The Civil Service Commission-Field Office (CSC-FO) disapproved petitioner's appointment due to insufficient experience, and she was ordered to revert to her former position of Education Supervisor II.

Study Leave and AWOL Declaration:

  • Petitioner applied for and was granted a one-year academic scholarship with pay effective 30 October 1996 as Education Supervisor II.
  • Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the CSC decision was denied, and her petition for review before the Court of Appeals was also denied, becoming final on 17 October 1998.
  • Meanwhile, respondent filed a complaint regarding petitioner's absence, leading to petitioner being declared Absent Without Leave (AWOL) and dropped from the payroll on 24 December 1998.

Reinstatement Attempts:

  • On 20 July 2000, Acting Regional Governor Matalam ordered petitioner to reassume her position as Education Supervisor II, revoking the AWOL order. However, on 1 August 2000, the same Acting Governor reinstated the AWOL order.
  • On 4 August 2000, ARMM Regional Governor Misuari issued a Memorandum ordering petitioner's reinstatement based on CSC Resolution No. 96-3101.

Legal Proceedings:

  • Respondent filed a Petition for Prohibition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to prevent petitioner's reinstatement, arguing she would suffer irreparable injury.
  • The RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction and later ruled in favor of respondent, holding that the 4 August 2000 Memorandum could not be implemented due to the AWOL order and petitioner's separation from service.

Issues:

  • Whether a writ of prohibition lies to enjoin the ARMM Governor's directive to reinstate petitioner despite her being declared AWOL and dropped from the rolls.
  • Whether the trial court erred in taking cognizance of the petition for prohibition and whether it violated the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
  • Whether the AWOL order validated respondent's occupancy of the position of Education Supervisor II.
  • Who, as between petitioner and respondent, is entitled to the position of Education Supervisor II.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.