G.R. No. 152651 August 7, 2006
Andabai T. Arimao, Petitioner, vs. Saadea P. Taher, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Andabai T. Arimao was appointed Director II in 1995, but the Civil Service Commission (CSC) disapproved this appointment for lacking the required experience and ordered her reversion to her former position of Education Supervisor II. This CSC order became final and executory in 1998. Meanwhile, Arimao was granted a one-year study leave from October 1996. After its expiration, she failed to report for duty. Consequently, the ARMM Executive Secretary, upon complaint by respondent Saadea P. Taher who was occupying the Education Supervisor II position, declared Arimao absent without leave (AWOL) and dropped her from the payroll in December 1998. This administrative action was affirmed by the Office of the ARMM Regional Governor in March 1999.
Despite the final AWOL ruling, ARMM Regional Governor Nur Misuari issued a Memorandum in August 2000 ordering Arimao’s reinstatement as Education Supervisor II, purportedly to comply with the earlier CSC order for her reversion. Taher, asserting her security of tenure as the permanent holder of the position, filed a Petition for Prohibition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to enjoin the implementation of this reinstatement order.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court correctly issued the writ of prohibition to enjoin the implementation of ARMM Governor Misuari’s Memorandum ordering Arimao’s reinstatement.

RULING

Yes, the RTC correctly issued the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed that the August 2000 Memorandum was issued without legal basis and constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the finality of administrative actions and security of tenure. The CSC’s 1996 order for Arimao’s reversion was superseded by the subsequent and final administrative finding that she had gone on AWOL, leading to her lawful separation from service in 1998. Governor Misuari’s attempt to reinstate her based on the obsolete CSC order disregarded this final administrative adjudication. Furthermore, respondent Taher had acquired a vested right to the position of Education Supervisor II, having been permanently appointed and having rendered service for over five years. Her security of tenure protects her from removal without just cause and due process. The Governor’s Memorandum, which effectively sought to oust Taher, violated this constitutional guarantee. Since the act sought to be enjoined was patently illegal and Taher had no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the special civil action of prohibition was the proper remedy to prevent the enforcement of an unlawful executive act.