Borres v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents German O. Lumapac and Bartolome Elizondo were appointed Senior Security and Security Guard, respectively, in the Office of the Vice-Mayor of Cebu City. Upon assumption of office by petitioner Eulogio E. Borres as Acting Mayor, he terminated the services of private respondents "due to lack of confidence." Procedural History: Private respondents filed a petition for mandamus with damages, praying for their reinstatement, back salaries, damages, and attorney's fees. The Court of First Instance of Cebu declared their dismissals illegal, ordered their reinstatement with back salaries, and awarded attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Petition: Petitioners City Mayor Eulogio E. Borres, et al. sought a review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the private respondents were illegally dismissed and had not exhausted administrative remedies.
Issue(s)
Whether the positions of Senior Security and Security Guard in the Office of the Vice-Mayor are primarily confidential in nature. Whether the private respondents, holding permanent appointments to these positions, could be dismissed without cause or hearing on the mere ground of lack of confidence. Whether the private respondents had exhausted administrative remedies before filing their action for mandamus.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The dismissals of German O. Lumapac and Bartolome Elizondo were declared legal as their terms of office merely expired due to loss of confidence.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the positions are primarily confidential: The Court held that the positions of Senior Security and Security Guard in the Office of the Vice-Mayor are primarily confidential in nature due to the duties and functions attached to them, which require the highest degree of trust and confidence. These duties include providing protection for the Vice-Mayor's safety, accompanying him, and performing other assigned tasks, necessitating a close personal relationship and freedom from misgivings of betrayal of personal trust. The fact that the private respondents were appointed upon the recommendation of the then Vice-Mayor further supports this classification. On the legality of dismissal without cause or hearing: The Court distinguished this case from Gray v. de Vera. It ruled that while Gray involved a position where loyalty was to good government, the positions of Security Guard and Senior Security in the Vice-Mayor's office involve a very close personal relation and a high degree of trust. Therefore, the tenure of personnel holding such primarily confidential positions ends upon loss of confidence, as their term of office lasts only as long as confidence endures. Their cessation from service involves no removal but rather an expiration of their term, akin to an elected official whose term ends upon completion of their fixed term. Thus, they are not illegally removed or dismissed. On exhaustion of administrative remedies: The Court noted that the private respondents had indeed sent petitions to the Commissioner of Civil Service. However, no definite action was taken by the Commissioner despite the lapse of time. The Court reiterated that the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not applicable when it is futile to resort to such remedies, such as when the administrative body delays or fails to act. In such instances, the aggrieved party may directly go to court for relief, especially when the action of the administrative body is manifestly illegal or without lawful authority. However, this point became moot given the Court's ultimate ruling on the nature of the positions.
Main Doctrine
Personnel holding primarily confidential positions, whose tenure depends on the highest degree of trust and confidence, may be removed from service upon loss of that confidence, as their term of office merely expires and does not involve a removal for cause. However, even in such positions, dismissal without due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard, is illegal.