GR 85156; (February, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 85156 ; February 5, 1991
HON. LOURDES R. QUISUMBING, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. MANUEL LUIS GUMBAN, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Esther B. Yap was a District Supervisor of the Bureau of Public Schools. In February 1987, then DECS Secretary Lourdes Quisumbing, citing agitation from teachers and citizens, issued a memorandum ordering Yap’s reassignment from Glan District to Malapatan District. Yap defied the transfer order and continued performing her duties in Glan.
Yap filed a petition for prohibition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to enjoin the transfer. The petitioners, including Secretary Quisumbing, filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss, which the RTC denied. The RTC subsequently granted Yap’s prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. The petitioners assailed these RTC orders via the present petition.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss and in enjoining the transfer of respondent Yap.
RULING
Yes, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the challenged RTC orders. The legal logic is threefold. First, Yap’s appointment as District Supervisor did not indicate a specific station; thus, she could be assigned to any station and had no right to stay permanently in Glan. Her transfer, made in the interest of public service, was neither whimsical nor arbitrary.
Second, the issue of whether the transfer violated the election ban had become moot and academic, as the election period for the May 1987 elections had already elapsed by the time of the Court’s decision. Third, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies was correctly disregarded by the RTC, as exceptions apply, including when the question is purely legal. However, on the substantive merits, Yap’s claim lacked legal basis.
While an order denying a motion to dismiss is generally interlocutory and not subject to certiorari, the Supreme Court found it expedient to resolve the case on its merits to avoid multiplicity of suits. Since Yap’s status was akin to a “district supervisor at large,” the transfer order was a valid exercise of managerial prerogative. The RTC’s injunction therefore constituted grave abuse of discretion for interfering with a lawful administrative act.