View full case

REBECCA T. ARQUERO v. CA

FACTS:

The petitioner, Rebecca T. Arquero, filed a petition for review on certiorari against public respondents Edilberto C. De Jesus, Dr. Paraluman Giron, Dr. Eduardo Lopez, and private respondent Norma Brillantes. The case stems from the integration of certain high schools in Puerto Princesa City and the Province of Palawan with the Palawan National School (PNS), mandated by Republic Act No. 6765. The law provided for the appointment of a Vocational School Superintendent (VSS) to head the Palawan Integrated National Schools (PINS), but no VSS was appointed and the PNS Principal was designated as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the PINS. Various court actions were filed against the DepEd orders regarding the supervision and administration of the PINS satellite schools. In 2002, an order directed the integration of the secondary schools with the PNS under the supervision of the schools division superintendents, but another order ordered the maintenance of the status quo. The petitioner's designation as OIC of the PINS was eventually withdrawn, prompting her to appeal to the Civil Service Commission.

In 2003, Norma B. Brillantes was designated as the OIC of the PINS, and the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and/or clarification. Also in 2003, Dr. Giron filed a formal charge against the petitioner for defying orders and she was preventively suspended for ninety days. The petitioner filed a petition for quo warranto with the RTC of Palawan, arguing that the designation of private respondent as OIC violated her right to security of tenure. The RTC declared the respondents in default and rendered a Judgment by Default in favor of the petitioner, declaring her as the lawful Principal of the PINS. The RTC also invalidated the formal charge against her. However, the CA reversed the RTC decision and dismissed the petitioner's petition for quo warranto, stating that the PINS and its satellite schools remained under the administrative jurisdiction of the DepEd. No costs were awarded in the CA decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) decision was rendered in a way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the highest court.

  2. Whether the CA decision was supported by recorded evidence.

  3. Whether the petitioner, as the principal of the PNS, has the right to the contested public office and to oust the private respondent from its enjoyment.

  4. Whether the petitioner failed to prove that she is entitled to the contested position.

  5. Whether the petitioner has a better right to hold the position of Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Puerto Princesa Integrated National School (PINS) than the private respondent.

  6. Whether the enactment of RA 9155 weakens petitioner's claim.

RULING:

  1. The petition is without merit.

  2. The petitioner does not have the right to the contested public office and to oust the private respondent from its enjoyment. A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine the right or title to the contested public office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment. The petitioner must prove that she is entitled to the subject public office, and since she failed to do so, the person who holds the office has a right to undisturbed possession.

  3. The petitioner failed to prove that she is entitled to the contested position. She was appointed as the principal of the PNS and designated as the OIC of the PINS, but the designation was withdrawn. The petitioner held the position of OIC in a temporary capacity and her right to the contested position ceased to exist upon the withdrawal of her designation.

  4. The petitioner failed to establish her right to the contested position of OIC of the PINS. Therefore, the dismissal of her quo warranto petition is in order. The Court of Appeals Decision affirming the dismissal is upheld.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A defaulted defendant may appeal from the judgment rendered against him, even if no petition to set aside the order of default has been presented (Martinez v. Republic).

  • A defending party declared in default loses his standing in court and his right to adduce evidence and to present his defense. However, he has the right to appeal from the judgment by default and challenge the judgment on certain grounds (Rural Bank of Sta. Catalina v. Land Bank of the Philippines).

  • A defendant declared in default retains the right to appeal from the judgment by default on certain grounds, but does not regain the right to adduce evidence.

  • A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine the right or title to a contested public office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment.

  • In a quo warranto proceeding, the petitioner must prove a clear right to the contested position, otherwise, the person who holds the position has a right to undisturbed possession.

  • The purpose of an acting or temporary appointment is to prevent a hiatus in the discharge of official functions, and the appointment is revocable at any time by the appointing authority.

  • The right to the contested position will depend on the qualifications required by the law creating the position.

  • The main school and the integrated school shall be headed by different individuals, as clearly stated in the law.

  • The enactment of RA 9155 provides a framework for the governance of basic education and emphasizes the principle of shared governance.

  • The integration of schools under RA 6765 involves certain high schools in different municipalities of a province or city.

  • The dismissal of the petitioner's petition only affects her position as OIC of the PINS, and not her permanent position as principal of the Puerto Princesa National School (PNS).