Cadiente v. Santos

G.R. No. L-35592 · 1986-06-11 · J. ALAMPAY, J.: · Primary: Labor; Secondary: Administrative Law
REITERATION

Facts

1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Medardo Ag. Cadiente was appointed City Legal Officer of Davao City by the then City Mayor Elias B. Lopez. This appointment was attested to and approved as "permanent" by the Civil Service Commission. Subsequently, the incumbent City Mayor Luis T. Santos terminated petitioner's services, asserting that the position of City Legal Officer is primarily confidential in nature and that his services were dispensed with. 2. Procedural History: Following his termination, petitioner appealed to the Civil Service Commission, which ruled that his dismissal was without cause and due process, and that the position was not non-competitive. The Davao City Council passed a resolution recognizing petitioner as the rightful City Legal Officer. Despite this, public respondents refused to recognize him. Petitioner then filed a case for mandamus, quo warranto, with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Davao City. The trial court dismissed the case, holding that the position of City Legal Officer is primarily confidential. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition. 3. The Petition: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao City. Petitioner seeks to compel reinstatement and payment of back salaries, arguing his dismissal was illegal. The core of the dispute revolves around whether the position of City Legal Officer is primarily confidential, which would allow termination based on loss of confidence, or if it is a permanent, competitive position requiring cause for dismissal. The petition challenges the trial court's ruling that the position is primarily confidential.

Issue(s)

Whether the position of City Legal Officer is primarily confidential in nature. Whether the termination of petitioner's services constituted an illegal dismissal or an expiration of term due to loss of confidence.

Ruling

The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the position of City Legal Officer is primarily confidential and that petitioner's separation from service was due to loss of confidence, not illegal dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

On the nature of the City Legal Officer position: The Supreme Court reiterated its ruling in Claudio v. Subido that the position of City Legal Officer is "primarily confidential." This classification stems from the nature of the functions attached to the office, which require the highest degree of trust and confidence between the appointing authority and the appointee. The relationship is akin to that of a lawyer and client, demanding "close intimacy which insures freedom of intercourse, without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings of betrayals of personal trust on confidential matters of state." The approval of the appointment as permanent by the Civil Service Commission does not alter the inherent nature of the position if it is indeed primarily confidential. On the termination of services: The Court held that officials holding primarily confidential positions serve at the pleasure of the appointing power. Their tenure ends upon loss of confidence, which is not considered a removal or dismissal but rather an expiration of their term. This is because their term of office lasts only as long as confidence in them endures. When confidence is lost, their cessation from office involves no removal, but merely the expiration of their term, analogous to an officer whose term expires at the end of a fixed period. Therefore, the termination of petitioner's services by the respondent City Mayor, based on loss of confidence, did not violate the constitutional provision against dismissal except for cause, as it was not a dismissal but an expiration of his term.

Main Doctrine

Officials holding primarily confidential positions serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority and their tenure ends upon loss of confidence, which does not constitute removal or dismissal but merely an expiration of term.

Access audio review, related cases, codal links, and more.

Open LexMatePH →