Besa v. Philippine National Bank
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Tomas Besa was appointed Chief Legal Counsel with the rank of Vice-President of the Philippine National Bank (PNB) in 1962. On October 19, 1966, the PNB Board of Directors passed Resolution No. 1053, shifting Vice President Tomas Besa to the office of the President as Consultant on Legal Matters, without change in salary and other privileges. Conrado E. Medina was assigned to Besa's former position. Procedural History: Petitioner sought reconsideration of the resolution, which was denied on October 27, 1966. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and quo warranto, seeking to nullify the resolution and enjoin its enforcement. The Petition: Petitioner invoked the constitutional safeguard against removal from office except for cause, arguing that his transfer constituted removal without cause. The respondents, including PNB and its officials, admitted the facts but asserted that Medina's appointment was valid and that Besa's transfer was justified by the confidential nature of the Chief Legal Counsel position.
Issue(s)
Whether the transfer of petitioner Tomas Besa from the position of Chief Legal Counsel to Consultant on Legal Matters constitutes a removal from office without cause, in violation of the constitutional safeguard. Whether the position of Chief Legal Counsel of the Philippine National Bank is primarily confidential in nature.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The transfer of petitioner Tomas Besa does not constitute removal from office in the constitutional sense, as the position of Chief Legal Counsel is primarily confidential, and thus, the incumbent serves at the pleasure of the appointing power.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: Whether the transfer of petitioner Tomas Besa from the position of Chief Legal Counsel to Consultant on Legal Matters constitutes a removal from office without cause, in violation of the constitutional safeguard. The constitutional safeguard against removal without cause applies to civil service positions with a fixed term. However, it does not apply when the duration of one's term depends on the will of the appointing power, particularly in positions that are highly confidential in character. The petitioner's position as Chief Legal Counsel of the Philippine National Bank is such a position. Therefore, his transfer, which resulted in the termination of his official relation with the Bank in that specific capacity, cannot be characterized as a removal in the constitutional sense. The essence of holding such a position involves a high degree of confidence, and the incumbent should be aware that their term could be cut short without infringing upon constitutional guarantees. The action taken by the respondent Bank was a termination of an official relation, not a removal for cause. On Issue 2: Whether the position of Chief Legal Counsel of the Philippine National Bank is primarily confidential in nature. The Court affirmed that the position of Chief Legal Counsel of the Philippine National Bank is primarily confidential. This is because the position carries a special confidential relationship of lawyer and client, where the Bank has the prerogative to designate or change its lawyer based on confidence. The Court cited precedents that define primarily confidential positions as those where the tenure ends upon loss of confidence, as their term lasts only as long as confidence endures. While the work of a Chief Legal Counsel is technical, the confidential aspect predominates, negating the insistence of a fixed or definite term. The Bank's right to choose its legal counsel and to terminate that relationship is absolute, provided the lawyer's earned compensation is respected. Therefore, the petitioner could not plausibly contend that his position had a fixed term that could only be terminated for cause.
Main Doctrine
The position of Chief Legal Counsel of the Philippine National Bank is primarily confidential in nature, and therefore, the incumbent may be transferred or removed at any time without violating the constitutional safeguard against removal without cause, as such action does not constitute removal in the constitutional sense but rather a termination of official relation due to loss of confidence.