3. ARQUERO VS CA ET AL 6. Dr.
Giron then withdrew Arquero’s designation as PINS-OIC, enjoining her to submit to
G.R. NO. 1680953
SEPTEMBER 21, 2011
TOPIC: QUO WARRANTO
PETITIONER: REBECCA ARQUERO
RESPONDENTS: CA, SedEd DE JESUS, DR. GIRON, DIR OF DEPED REGIONAL OFFICE IV, DR.
LOPEZ, SCHOOL SUPT. PUERTO PRINCESA, AND NORMA BRILLANTES
PONENTE: PERALTA
DOCTRINE: The purpose of an acting or temporary appointment is to prevent a hiatus in the
discharge of official functions by authorizing a person to discharge those functions pending the
selection of a permanent or another appointee. An acting appointee accepts the position on
the condition that he shall surrender the office once he is called to do so by the appointing
authority. Therefore, his term of office is not fixed, but endures at the pleasure of the appointing
authority. The essence of an acting appointment is its temporariness and its consequent
revocability at any time by the appointing authority.
FACTS:
1. Congress passed RA 6765 under which 10 schools in Puerto Princesa were converted to
National Schools and integrated w/ the Palawan National School (PNS).
a. Sec. 2 of the same provides that PNS shall offer secondary technical-vocational courses
to carry out its goal and that it shall serve as the “mother unit” and the schools under
it should benefit from a centralized curriculum to eliminate duplicity of functions
relative to human resource dev’t for Palawan.
b. Further, the law provides that the Palawan Integrated National Schools (PINS) shall be
helmed by a Vocational School Supt. (VSS) who shall be appointed by the SepEd. Except
for the Puerto Princesa School of PH Craftsmen, the PNS and each of its unit schools
shall be headed by a principal or secondary head teacher to be chosen in accordance
w/ DepEd rules.
2. However, no VSS was appointed instead the DepEd Regional Office (DepEd-RO) designated
then PNS Principal Dela Cuesta in a concurrent capacity as the PINS-OIC. After his
retirement, Arquero took over as Secondary School Principal of PNS and designated as
PINS-OIC.
3. Then the RO director Trinidad placed all PINS satellite schools under the direct supervision
of the Palawan Schools Division Supt. (SDS). Such directive was approved by DepEd and
Arquero was instructed to turn the administration of PINS. In another memo, SDS Gesilva
was designated as PINS-OIC hence these events prompted different parties to file various
actions restraining the enforcement of the DepEd orders.
4. Under another law, RA 8204, separate City Schools Division Offices were established in
Puerto Princesa and Palawan. DepEd RO-Director Magsino ordered the SDS of Palawan and
Puerto Princesa that the PINS shall be under the supervision of the divisions schools
superintendents concerned while Arquero was to supervise the PNS w/c again prompted
the filing of various actions.
5. Then SepEd Jacob ordered Dr. Giron, the OIC-RO Director that there being no more legal
impediment to the integration, the schools integrated w/ the PNS be under the supervision
by the respective SDS of Palawan and Puerto Princesa according to their territorial
boundaries. Thus Dr. Giron instructed the principal of said schools of the assumed
jurisdiction of the SDS of their respective places. However, DepEd USec. Bacani ordered
that the status quo be maintained hence no turn over will happen. While this was
happening, Arquero remained PINS-OIC.
the RO all appointments and personnel movement in PNS and the satellite schools.
Arquero appealed to the CSC questioning said withdrawal. SepEd De Jesus then
designated Brillantes as Asst. SDS and PINS-OIC. Arquero filed a MR w/ the SepEd as to
Brillantes’ designation.
7. Dr. Giron filed an administrative case against Arquero who still defied said withdrawal
orders and charged of insubordination, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the
service. Arquero was preventively suspended for 90 days.
8. Arquero filed a quo warranto petition (QW) w/ TRO and WPI in RTC-Palawan against the
respondents herein arguing that Brillantes’ designation deprived of exercising her duties
in violation of her security of tenure. She claimed that since her appointment was
permanent, Brillantes’ designation is void as it was not vacant. The RTC issued a 72-hour
TRO and QPI. Respondents did not file their respective Answers hence were declared in
default.
9. RTC: Due to the respondents’ default, Arquero was declared as the head of the PINS. Her
administrative charges were also ineffective and ordered Brillantes to cease from
exercising her duty as PNS Principal.
a. Since PNS failed to offer post-secondary technical-vocational courses, the VSS position
became functus officio (?). Thus, PNS remained to be a general secondary school under
DepEd’s jurisdiction. PINS’s supervision was automatically vested w/ the PNS Principal
w/o the necessity of designation. The administrative cases filed were void for lack of
due process.
10. CA: Reversed the RTC. Per StatCon, the PINS and its satellite schools remain under DepEd
and not under TESDA. By providing a higher qualification for the VSS position, w/c is chosen
by the SepEd that is separate from the PNS-School Head, the law intended that the VSS
and PNS-School Head be 2 different persons. If we were to follow the RTC ruling, Arquero
would assume a SDS role w/o the benefit of an appointment. She had no legal right to be
PINS-OIC as she merely designated in addition to her duty as PNS-School Head.
11. ISSUE: WoN Arquero has the right to be PINS-OIC – NO
RULING
12. QW 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. It is brought against the person
who is alleged to have usurped, intruded into, or unlawfully held or exercised the public
office. It may be brought by the Republic of the PH or by the person claiming to be entitled
to such office.
13. In this case, though Arquero was appointed as PNS-Principal and designated PINS-OIC,
said designation was withdrawn by Dr. Giron and designated Brillantes as the PINS-OIC.
The contested position was created by Sec. 3 of RA 6765 w/c provides:
a. The school shall be headed by a Vocational School Superintendent. He shall be
chosen and appointed by the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports [now
Secretary of Education].
14. Sec. 4 of the same provides: The Home Industries Training Supervisor of the Puerto
Princesa School of Philippine Craftsmen shall continue to serve as such. The main school
and each of its units or branches shall be headed either by a Principal or Secondary School
Head Teacher to be chosen in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Department
of Education, Culture and Sports [now the Department of Education].
15. As ruled by the CA, the law created 2 positions VSS and Principal of each of the units of the
integrated school. The legislative intent was clear that the integrated schools shall be
headed by a superintendent. In this case, Arquero did not possess the qualification to be
 such as she was just designated by DepEd as PINS-OIC. Having been such w/o the necessary
qualifications, she only held it temporarily.
16. The purpose of an acting or temporary appointment is to prevent a hiatus in the
discharge of official functions by authorizing a person to discharge those functions
pending the selection of a permanent or another appointee. An acting appointee accepts
the position on the condition that he shall surrender the office once he is called to do so
by the appointing authority. Therefore, his term of office is not fixed, but endures at the
pleasure of the appointing authority. The essence of an acting appointment is its
temporariness and its consequent revocability at any time by the appointing authority.
17. Thus under said law, Arquero can only insist on her security of tenure as PNS-Principal but
not as PINS-OIC. Upon the withdrawal of her designation, she had not right to said position.
18. As found by the RTC and CA, the PINS failed to implement its technical-vocational
education program. Consequently, the PNS and the other satellite schools never came
under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Technical and Vocational Education of the DepEd
nor the technical-vocational education in DepEd’s ROs.
19. Thus, except for the Puerto Princesa School of Philippine Craftsmen, which is now within
the jurisdiction of the TESDA, the PNS and the other units remained under the complete
administrative jurisdiction of the DepEd. Although the technical-vocational education
program was not implemented, it does not alter the law’s intent that the main school,
which is the PNS and the other units integrated with it, shall be headed either by a principal
or secondary school head teacher; while the PINS or the integrated school shall be headed
by another.
20. Arquero’s insistence that the principal automatically heads the PINS without appointment
or designation cannot be upheld. As clearly explained by the CA, "by providing for a distinct
position with a higher qualification (that of a superintendent), specifically chosen and
appointed by the DepEd Secretary, separate from the school head of the PNS offering
general secondary education program, the law clearly intended the functions of a VSS and
school principal of the PNS to be discharged and performed by two different people.
21. Clearly, Arquero failed to establish her right to the contested position. Therefore, the
dismissal of her quo warranto petition is in order. It must be emphasized, however, that
this declaration only involves the position of petitioner as OIC of the PINS. It does not in
any way affect her position as principal of the PNS which she holds in a permanent capacity.
FALLO: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Court
of Appeals Decision dated December 15, 2004 and Resolution dated May 3, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP
No. 85899, are AFFIRMED.