G.R. No. 85156 - Quisumbing vs. Gumban

On or before 1979, private respondent Esther B. Yap was appointed as District Supervisor of the Bureau of Public Schools and assigned to the District of Glan, South Cotabato.
Her appointment, being that of a district supervisor, did not indicate any specific permanent station, making her position akin to that of a district supervisor at large.

In response to agitation by teachers and concerned citizens in Glan, then Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports, Lourdes R. Quisumbing, issued a Memorandum Order on February 11, 1987 directing Regional Director Teofilo E. Gomez to reassign or transfer Esther B. Yap to another district.
Subsequently, Teofilo E. Gomez executed this directive on February 12, 1987 by issuing his own Memorandum Order transferring Yap from Glan District to Malapatan District and designating Crisanto B. Delamin to assume the supervisor position at Glan.
Crisanto B. Delamin then informed the principals and head teachers in Glan of his assumption of office through a memorandum.

Esther B. Yap defied the transfer order by continuing to perform her functions as the public school district supervisor in Glan.
On February 20, 1987, Yap initiated legal proceedings by filing a petition (Special Civil Case No. 230) for prohibition and seeking a preliminary injunction/restraining order against Secretary Quisumbing, Regional Director Gomez, and Crisanto B. Delamin.
The petition was directed at annulling:

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 23’s order (dated August 17, 1987) denying the Omnibus Motion to Dismiss.
The order (dated August 25, 1987) granting the Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
The order (dated April 15, 1988) denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioners.

The transfer was not violative of law as it was made in the interest of public service.
The transfer was effected outside the election ban period, rendering the election-related issue moot.
Esther B. Yap had failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies before resorting to judicial intervention.

The orders being interlocutory in nature were not correctible by certiorari.
The transfer order was a clear violation of the election law and constituted a political accommodation.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies was inapplicable since the transfer was based on unverified demands of alleged concerned citizens without the benefit of proper investigation.

It was established that the appointment of Esther B. Yap as District Supervisor did not assign her to a specific permanent station.
The transfer, therefore, did not deprive her of a fixed station, supporting the notion that she was subject to reassignment as part of her duties.
With the election period (May 11, 1987) already elapsed, any contention regarding violation of an election ban was deemed moot and academic.

Whether the transfer (reassignment) of Esther B. Yap as District Supervisor was conducted in accordance with the law.
Whether such an administrative order, given her nature of appointment as a district supervisor at large, was within the powers and wisdom of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports.

Whether the transfer order violated the election law, particularly in light of the timing of the election ban in relation to the issuance of the order.
Whether the political context and alleged electoral considerations rendered the transfer an illegitimate act.

Whether Esther B. Yap was obligated to exhaust all available administrative remedies before resorting to filing the petition.
Whether the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies in cases involving clear and open violations, or acts performed without due regard for jurisdiction and due process.

Whether judicial intervention by granting the petition (i.e., setting aside the lower court’s orders) is appropriate given the interlocutory status of the orders.
Whether resolving the issues on the merits is justified to prevent multiplicity of suits and undue delay.