Arquero v. CA

G.R. No. 168053 (September 21, 2011)

SC upheld the appellate court's ruling; Arquero's appointment lacked security of tenure.

Facts:

The case revolves around the integration of certain high schools in Puerto Princesa City and the Province of Palawan into the Palawan National School (PNS) as mandated by Republic Act (RA) No. 6765, enacted on October 13, 1989. This law aimed to enhance the educational framework by designating the PNS as the "mother unit" and integrating various schools under its administration. The law also stipulated that the PNS would offer not only general secondary education but also post-secondary technical-vocational courses.

Despite the provisions of RA 6765, the position of Vocational School Superintendent (VSS) was never filled. Instead, Eugenio J. dela Cuesta, the principal of PNS, was designated as the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Palawan Integrated National Schools (PINS). After Dela Cuesta's retirement, Rebecca T. Arquero became the principal of PNS and was subsequently designated as OIC of the PINS in 1993.

In 1994, a directive was issued placing all satellite schools under the direct supervision of the Schools Division Superintendent for Palawan, which led to various legal actions. In 2000, further orders reiterated that the PINS satellite schools would be supervised by the division superintendents, prompting more disputes.

In 2002, the Department of Education (DepEd) issued an order confirming that the PINS satellite schools would be under the management of the respective division superintendents. Following this, Arquero was removed from her OIC position, and Norma Brillantes was appointed as the new OIC. Arquero contested this change, arguing that her removal violated her right to security of tenure as she held a permanent position.

In response, Arquero filed a Petition for Quo Warranto against Brillantes and other DepEd officials, claiming that her designation as OIC was valid and that Brillantes' appointment was null and void. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of Arquero, declaring her the lawful principal of PNS and nullifying the administrative charges against her.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in reversing the RTC's judgment by default in favor of Arquero.
  2. Whether Arquero had a clear legal right to the contested position of OIC of the PINS.
  3. The validity of the administrative charges and preventive suspension imposed on Arquero.

Arguments:

  • Petitioner (Arquero):

    • Arquero argued that her designation as OIC was valid and that the removal was unlawful, infringing on her right to security of tenure.
    • She contended that the administrative charges against her were baseless and lacked due process.
    • Arquero maintained that the PINS should remain under her supervision as the principal of PNS, as the position of VSS was never filled.

  • Respondents (Brillantes and DepEd officials):

    • The respondents contended that the PINS and its satellite schools were under the complete administrative jurisdiction of the DepEd, and that Arquero's designation as OIC was temporary and could be revoked.
    • They argued that Arquero failed to establish her legal right to the position of OIC, as she was merely designated and not appointed.
    • The respondents asserted that the administrative charges were valid and within the jurisdiction of the DepEd.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The CA reversed the RTC's decision, emphasizing that the PINS and its satellite schools remained under the jurisdiction of the DepEd. The appellate court clarified that the law intended for the positions of VSS and the principal of PNS to be held by different individuals, and that Arquero's designation as OIC was temporary and could be revoked at any time.

The CA found that Arquero did not possess the qualifications necessary for the position of OIC and that her removal did not violate her right to due process or security of tenure. The court also noted that the administrative charges against her were still pending and thus not subject to review in this case.

The CA concluded that Arquero failed to prove her entitlement to the contested position, leading to the dismissal of her quo warranto petition.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. The distinction between temporary designations and permanent appointments in public office, emphasizing that temporary appointees serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority.
  2. The necessity for a petitioner in a quo warranto proceeding to establish a clear legal right to the contested public office.
  3. The affirmation that administrative charges against public officials must be resolved within the appropriate administrative framework and are not subject to judicial review until concluded.