Cadiente vs. Santos

A City Legal Officer is a primarily confidential employee in the non-competitive service; the Civil Service Commission's attestation of the appointment as permanent does not make the position competitive, and separation upon loss of confidence is an expiration of term, not a removal or dismissal.

Medardo Ag. Cadiente was appointed City Legal Officer of Davao City by then Mayor Elias B. Lopez, while Luis T. Santos later assumed the mayoralty and Victor Clapano was appointed to the same office. The dispute turns on the civil service classification of the City Legal Officer under R.A. 2260, as amended, particularly whether the office is primarily confidential and thus outside the competitive service, and on the effect of a Civil Service Commission attestation of the appointment as permanent. The case also implicates the constitutional security of tenure for civil service officers and the statutory age requirement for appointment under R.A. 728.

On September 13, 1971, petitioner Medardo Ag. Cadiente was appointed by then Mayor Elias B. Lopez as City Legal Officer of Davao City. The appointment was duly attested to and/or approved as "permanent" by the Civil Service Commission under Section 24(b) of R.A. 2260.

On January 6, 1972, respondent Luis T. Santos, the new and then incumbent City Mayor, sent Cadiente a letter advising him that his services as City Legal Officer "are dispensed with effective upon receipt of said letter" on the ground that the position of City Legal Officer was primarily confidential in nature. This was the opinion rendered by the City Fiscal of Davao City on January 6, 1972, after being requested to submit a legal opinion on the matter. On the same date, Mayor Santos appointed respondent Atty. Victor Clapano as City Legal Officer, to take effect on that date.

Cadiente appealed to the Civil Service Commission. In its 1st Indorsement dated March 2, 1972, the Commission held that the termination, removal, and/or dismissal of Cadiente was "without cause and without due process" and that the position of City Legal Officer "is not included among those positions enumerated in Sec. 5 of R.A. 2260 as belonging to the non-competitive service." Meanwhile, in an Indorsement dated February 8, 1972, the Commission returned Clapano's appointment to the City Mayor with the information that it had overlooked that the appointee was more than 57 years old at the time of his appointment and that authority for his appointment should first be secured from the Office of the President pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. 728, as reinforced by Section 5, Civil Service Rule IV.

On April 7, 1972, the City Council of Davao City passed Resolution No. 210, series of 1972, considering and recognizing Cadiente as the rightful City Legal Officer of Davao City. Despite this resolution, the public respondents—the City Mayor, the City Treasurer, and the City Auditor of Davao City—still declined and refused to recognize Cadiente as the one entitled to the disputed position.

Cadiente then filed with the Court of First Instance of Davao City, Branch I, Civil Case No. 7571, a petition for mandamus, quo warranto, with preliminary injunction against the respondents. He prayed that the City Mayor be ordered to reinstate him and/or allow him to continue performing his duties and functions as City Legal Officer; that Clapano's appointment be declared illegal and invalid; and that the City Mayor, City Treasurer, and City Auditor be ordered to pay him all salaries, wages, allowances, emoluments, and other benefits due him as City Legal Officer from the time of his illegal dismissal until the termination of the suit. The trial court found that the functions attached to the office required the highest trust and confidence of the appointing authority, a finding that became central to the Supreme Court's analysis.

• Nature of the City Legal Officer: Whether the position of City Legal Officer of Davao City is primarily confidential and belongs to the non-competitive service.
• Effect of Civil Service Commission Attestation: Whether the Civil Service Commission's attestation and approval of Cadiente's appointment as permanent under Section 24(b) of R.A. 2260 made the appointment permanent and the position competitive.
• Termination as Removal or Expiration of Term: Whether the termination of Cadiente's services by the City Mayor constituted a removal or dismissal requiring cause and due process, or merely an expiration of his term upon loss of confidence.
• Entitlement to Reinstatement and Back Salaries: Whether Cadiente is entitled to reinstatement and payment of back salaries, allowances, and other benefits as City Legal Officer.

• Nature of the City Legal Officer: Yes. The City Legal Officer is a primarily confidential position belonging to the non-competitive service, because the office requires the highest trust and confidence of the appointing authority.
• Effect of Civil Service Commission Attestation: No. The Civil Service Commission's attestation of the appointment as permanent did not make the appointment permanent or the position competitive; the primarily confidential nature of the office controls.
• Termination as Removal or Expiration of Term: No. The cessation of Cadiente's services was not a removal or dismissal but an expiration of his term upon loss of confidence, so no violation of the constitutional security of tenure occurred.
• Entitlement to Reinstatement and Back Salaries: No. Because the position is primarily confidential and the separation was a valid expiration of term, the petition for mandamus and quo warranto was denied for lack of merit.

• Nature of the City Legal Officer: The Court found as an undeniable fact that the position of City Legal Officer is primarily confidential. It relied on Claudio vs. Subido, where the Court held that the position of City Legal Officer requires the utmost confidence on the part of the mayor. The relationship between a lawyer and his client, whether a private individual or a public officer, depends on the highest degree of trust that the client entertains for the counsel selected. Pinero vs. Hechanova, citing De los Santos vs. Mallaare, defined "primarily confidential" as denoting not only confidence in the aptitude of the appointee for the duties of the office but primarily close intimacy which insures freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings of betrayals of personal trust on confidential matters of state. Because the position is primarily confidential, it belongs to the non-competitive service under Section 5 of R.A. 2260, as amended.
• Effect of Civil Service Commission Attestation: The trial court ruled that the approval and attestation of Cadiente's appointment as permanent under Section 24(b) of R.A. 2260 did not make the appointment permanent or the position fall under the competitive service. The Supreme Court denied the petition, thereby sustaining that ruling. The primarily confidential character of the office, determined by the functions attached to it, governs over the Civil Service Commission's attestation. Thus, Cadiente held office at the pleasure of the respondent Mayor.
• Termination as Removal or Expiration of Term: The tenure of officials holding primarily confidential positions ends upon loss of confidence, because their term of office lasts only as long as confidence in them endures; their cessation involves no removal. The Court cited Corpus vs. Cuaderno, Hernandez vs. Villegas, and Ingles vs. Mutuc. When the appointing power's pleasure turns into displeasure, the incumbent is not removed or dismissed from office; his term merely expires, in much the same way as an officer whose right ceases upon expiration of a fixed term is not deemed removed or dismissed. The main difference between a primarily confidential officer and one with a fixed term is that the latter's term is fixed or definite, while the former's is not pre-fixed but indefinite at the time of appointment, and becomes fixed and determined when the appointing power expresses its decision to put an end to the incumbent's services. Since there was no removal or dismissal, there was no violation of the constitutional provision that no officer or employee in the civil service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided by law.
• Entitlement to Reinstatement and Back Salaries: Because the position is primarily confidential and the separation was a valid expiration of term upon loss of confidence, Cadiente had no legal right to reinstatement or back salaries. The petition for mandamus and quo warranto was accordingly denied for lack of merit.

• Primarily Confidential Position — A primarily confidential position is one whose occupant enjoys a relationship of close intimacy with the appointing authority, ensuring freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or misgivings of betrayal of personal trust on confidential matters of state. The City Legal Officer is such a position, as the lawyer-client relationship between the City Legal Officer and the mayor requires the highest degree of trust. It belongs to the non-competitive service under Section 5 of R.A. 2260, as amended.
• Loss of Confidence as Expiration of Term — The tenure of officials holding primarily confidential positions ends upon loss of confidence because their term lasts only as long as confidence in them endures. Their cessation from office involves no removal but merely the expiration of their term. When the appointing power's pleasure turns to displeasure, the incumbent is not removed or dismissed; his term merely expires. Consequently, the constitutional guarantee against suspension or dismissal except for cause is not violated.
• Effect of Civil Service Commission Attestation — The Civil Service Commission's attestation or approval of an appointment as permanent under Section 24(b) of R.A. 2260 does not make the appointment permanent or convert a primarily confidential position into a competitive one. The nature of the position, determined by the functions attached to it, controls. The Court's denial of the petition sustained the trial court's ruling to this effect.
• Lawyer-Client Trust in Public Office — The relationship between a lawyer and his client, whether a private individual or a public officer, depends on the highest degree of trust that the client entertains for the counsel selected. This principle underlies the primarily confidential classification of the City Legal Officer.

• "The relationship existing between a lawyer and his client, whether a private individual or a public officer, is one that depends on the highest degree of trust that the latter entertains for the counsel selected." — This passage states the foundational reason why the City Legal Officer is classified as primarily confidential, grounding the Court's ruling on the lawyer-client relationship of trust between the City Legal Officer and the mayor.
• "The tenure of officials holding primarily confidential positions ends upon loss of confidence, because their term of office lasts only as long as confidence in them endures; and thus their cessation involves no removal (Corpus vs. Cuaderno, L-23721, March 31, 1965, 13 SCRA 591-596)." — This is the ratio decidendi on the nature of tenure for primarily confidential officials, directly supporting the holding that Cadiente's separation was not a removal or dismissal.
• "When an incumbent of a primarily confidential position holds office at the pleasure of the appointing power, and the pleasure turns into a displeasure, the incumbent is not removed or dismissed from office-his term merely expires, in much the same way as an officer, whose right thereto ceases upon expiration of the fixed term for which he had been appointed or elected, is not and cannot be deemed removed or dismissed therefrom, upon expiration of said term." — This passage distinguishes removal or dismissal from expiration of term, the key doctrinal distinction that defeated Cadiente's claim of illegal dismissal.
• "The main difference between the former the primarily confidential officer-and the latter is that the latter's term is fixed or definite, whereas that of the former is not pre-fixed, but indefinite, at the time of his appointment or election, and becomes fixed and determined when the appointing power expresses its decision to put an end to the services of the incumbent. When this event takes place, the latter is not removed or dismissed from office-his term merely expired," — This excerpt elaborates the expiration-of-term doctrine for primarily confidential officers and explains why loss of confidence does not amount to removal.

• Claudio vs. Subido, L-30865, August 31, 1971, 40 SCRA 481 — The Court relied on this case for the holding that the position of City Legal Officer requires the utmost confidence on the part of the mayor, supporting its classification of the office as primarily confidential.
• Pinero vs. Hechanova, L-22562, October 22, 1966, 18 SCRA 4176 — Cited for the definition of "primarily confidential," which denotes not only confidence in the appointee's aptitude but primarily close intimacy ensuring freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or misgivings of betrayal of personal trust on confidential matters of state.
• De los Santos vs. Mallaare, 87 Phil. 289 — Cited in Pinero vs. Hechanova as a source of the definition of a primarily confidential position.
• Corpus vs. Cuaderno, L-23721, March 31, 1965, 13 SCRA 591-596 — Cited for the rule that the tenure of officials holding primarily confidential positions ends upon loss of confidence, and their cessation involves no removal.
• Hernandez vs. Villegas, L-17287, June 30, 1965, 14 SCRA 548 — Cited for the holding that termination of a primarily confidential officer on the ground of loss of confidence involves no removal but merely the expiration of the term of office.
• Ingles vs. Mutuc, L-20390, November 29, 1960, 26 SCRA 171 — Cited for the explanation that when the appointing power's pleasure turns to displeasure, the incumbent is not removed or dismissed; his term merely expires, and the indefinite term becomes fixed when the appointing power decides to end the incumbent's services.

• Section 24(b), R.A. 2260 — The provision under which Cadiente's appointment as City Legal Officer was attested to and/or approved as permanent by the Civil Service Commission. The Court's denial sustained the ruling that such attestation did not make the appointment permanent or the position competitive where the office is primarily confidential.
• Section 5, R.A. 2260, as amended — The provision classifying positions in the non-competitive service. The Court held that the City Legal Officer, being primarily confidential, belongs to the non-competitive service under paragraph 1 of this section.
• Section 6, R.A. 728, as reinforced by Section 5, Civil Service Rule IV — Cited in the Civil Service Commission's February 8, 1972 Indorsement returning Clapano's appointment because he was more than 57 years old at the time of appointment and presidential authority was required. The Court did not resolve this issue in its disposition.
• Article XII-B, Section 1(3), 1973 Constitution — The constitutional provision stating that no officer or employee in the civil service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided by law. The Court held that there was no violation because Cadiente's separation was not a removal or dismissal but an expiration of term upon loss of confidence.

Feria (Chairman), Fernan, Gutierrez, Jr., and Paras, JJ., concurred.