Griño vs. Civil Service Commission

A provincial attorney is a primarily confidential position whose tenure ends upon loss of confidence, but legal assistants or subordinates in the provincial attorney's office are highly technical, not confidential, and as permanent classified employees enjoy security of tenure. Thus, the governor may terminate the provincial attorney without removal, but cannot terminate the legal subordinates on loss of confidence.

The Iloilo Provincial Attorney's Office was headed by respondent Teotimo Arandela, with respondents Cirilo Gelvezon, Teodulfo Dato-on, and Nelson Geduspan holding legal officer positions. Republic Act No. 5185 created the positions of provincial attorney and city legal officer and categorized their services as "trusted services," while the Civil Service Commission had classified Arandela's position as career and permanent and the legal officer items as permanent. Those classifications and the nature of the legal work frame the question whether the positions are primarily confidential and terminable upon loss of confidence.

Petitioner Sixto Demaisip was the first appointed Provincial Attorney of Iloilo, serving from April 3, 1973 up to June 2, 1986, when he offered to resign and his resignation was accepted by the then Acting Governor. In his resignation letter, Demaisip recommended the elevation of respondent Teotimo Arandela from Senior Legal Officer to Provincial Attorney. OIC Governor Licurgo Tirador later appointed Arandela as Provincial Attorney. Respondent Cirilo Gelvezon was promoted from Legal Officer II to Senior Legal Officer, while respondents Teodolfo Dato-on and Nelson Geduspan were appointed to the position of Legal Officer II.

On February 2, 1988, petitioner Simplicio Griño assumed office as the newly elected governor of Iloilo. One month later, he informed respondent Arandela and all the legal officers at the Provincial Attorney's Office of his decision to terminate their services. In his letter, Griño mentioned an article pertaining to the Iloilo office of the Provincial Attorney which appeared in the Panay News and which "undermined that trust and confidence" that he reposed on them.

Petitioner Demaisip was reappointed by Governor Griño as the Provincial Attorney. The latter arranged the replacements of the other legal officers: respondent Cirilo Gelvezon was replaced by petitioner Santos Aguadera, respondent Nelson Geduspan was replaced by petitioner Manuel Casumpang, and petitioner Manuel Traviña took the place of respondent Teodolfo Dato-on.

On March 15, 1988, Governor Griño formally terminated the services of the respondents on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. Respondents protested their termination with the Civil Service Commission within a month from the time of their termination. In connection with their separation, they applied for clearances, did not remain in office, and signed their payroll for March 15, 1988 acknowledging therein that their appointment "terminated/expired."

• Primarily Confidential Position: Petitioners argued that the position of provincial attorney is primarily confidential like that of a city legal officer, and that Cadiente vs. Santos must apply because the nature of the functions of both positions is primarily confidential.
• Estoppel: Petitioners contended that respondents are estopped from protesting the termination because they applied for clearances, did not remain in office, and signed their payroll for March 15, 1988 acknowledging that their appointment "terminated/expired."

• Civil Service Classification: Respondents maintained that since the Civil Service Commission had classified the position of respondent Arandela as a career position and certified the same as permanent, he is removable only for cause, and therefore Cadiente vs. Santos is not applicable.

• Provincial Attorney — Primarily Confidential: Whether the position of provincial attorney is primarily confidential and terminable upon loss of confidence despite its classification by the Civil Service Commission as career and permanent.
• Legal Subordinates — Primarily Confidential: Whether the legal assistants or subordinates of the provincial attorney are primarily confidential and terminable upon loss of confidence, or are highly technical permanent employees with security of tenure.
• Estoppel: Whether respondents are estopped from questioning their termination by applying for clearances, not remaining in office, and signing their payroll acknowledging that their appointment "terminated/expired."

• Provincial Attorney — Primarily Confidential: Yes. The provincial attorney is a primarily confidential position, akin to a city legal officer, and his term expires upon loss of confidence; the Civil Service Commission classification as career and permanent does not alter its nature.
• Legal Subordinates — Primarily Confidential: No. The legal assistants or subordinates are highly technical, not confidential, and as permanent classified employees enjoy security of tenure; Cadiente and Besa do not apply to them.
• Estoppel: No. The acts of applying for clearances, not remaining in office, and signing the payroll did not amount to estoppel; respondents protested within a month, and the acts were consequences of actual termination.

• Provincial Attorney — Primarily Confidential: The SC began from Cadiente vs. Santos, which held that a city legal officer is primarily confidential because the lawyer-client relationship demands the highest degree of trust; it quoted Pinero vs. Hechanova and De los Santos vs. Mallare that "primarily confidential" denotes not only confidence in aptitude but close intimacy ensuring freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or misgivings of betrayal of personal trust on confidential matters of state. The tenure of such officials ends upon loss of confidence, and cessation involves no removal but expiration of term, as held in Corpus vs. Cuaderno, Hernandez vs. Villegas, and Ingles vs. Mutuc. The SC found the provincial attorney to be the counterpart of the city legal officer: Republic Act No. 5185 created both positions and categorized their services as "trusted services," and their functions as legal adviser and legal officer for civil cases reflect the same highly confidential nature and need for trust between the officer and the local government head. The CSC classification of Arandela's position as career and permanent could not conceal or alter its highly confidential nature, just as in Cadiente the city legal officer's permanent attestation did not prevent the SC from declaring the position primarily confidential. Hence Arandela was not dismissed or removed; his term merely expired.
• Legal Subordinates — Primarily Confidential: The SC held that the Cadiente and Besa rulings cannot apply to the legal assistants or subordinates because those cases dealt specifically with the city legal officer and the PNB chief legal counsel, not their legal staff. The attorney-client relationship is strictly personal and prohibits delegation of the relationship without the client's consent, but the legal work involved can be delegated; the provincial attorney has administrative supervision and control over subordinates under Section 38(c), Chapter 7, Book 4 of the Revised Administrative Code. Positions in the civil service are confidential if the predominant reason for choosing the occupant is the appointing authority's belief that he can share a close intimate relationship with the occupant, and such positions are limited to those not separated from the appointing authority by an intervening public officer or series of public officers. The legal subordinates are remote from the appointing authority; the element of trust is no longer predominant, and their importance lies in their legal skills to facilitate the confidential employee's work. Any impairment of the appointing authority's interest through breach of residual trust by lower-ranked lawyers can be anticipated and prevented by the confidential employee through the power to review, approve, reverse, or modify their acts and decisions. Thus the legal assistants are highly technical, not confidential; their items remain permanent as classified by the CSC, and they enjoy security of tenure under the Constitution.
• Estoppel: The SC rejected petitioners' estoppel argument. Respondents applied for clearances, did not remain in office, and signed their payroll for March 15, 1988 acknowledging that their appointment "terminated/expired" because their services were actually dispensed with by Governor Griño; as separated government employees they had to apply for clearances and could not remain in office. Those acts did not mean they believed in principle that they were validly terminated and did not prevent them from later questioning the validity of the termination. The facts showed they protested their termination with the Civil Service Commission within a month, which the SC held was a reasonable period.

• Primarily Confidential Position — A position is primarily confidential when the predominant reason for the appointment is the appointing authority's belief that he can share a close intimate relationship with the occupant, ensuring freedom of discussion without embarrassment or misgivings of betrayal of personal trust on confidential matters of state; such positions are limited to those not separated from the appointing authority by an intervening public officer or series of public officers. The tenure of the holder ends upon loss of confidence, and cessation involves no removal but expiration of term. The SC applied this to the provincial attorney, treating him as the counterpart of the city legal officer under RA 5185 and holding that CSC classification as career and permanent did not alter the position's confidential nature.
• Security of Tenure of Legal Subordinates — Legal assistants or subordinates in the provincial attorney's office are highly technical, not confidential, because they are remote from the appointing authority and their work can be supervised and corrected by the confidential head. As permanent classified employees, they enjoy security of tenure and cannot be terminated on loss of confidence; Cadiente and Besa do not extend to them.
• Estoppel by Conduct — Acts done as consequences of an actually effected termination—such as applying for clearances, vacating office, and signing a payroll acknowledging termination/expiration—do not estop an employee from later questioning the termination's validity, especially where a protest is filed within a reasonable period. The SC applied this to respondents, who protested with the CSC within a month.

• "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." — The SC quoted this from Corpus vs. Cuaderno to explain that loss of confidence in a primarily confidential officer results in expiration, not removal.
• "There is no need to extend the professional relationship to the legal staff which assists the confidential employer above described. Since the positions occupied by these subordinates are remote from that of the appointing authority, the element of trust between them is no longer predominant." — The SC used this to distinguish the legal subordinates from the primarily confidential provincial attorney.
• "Consequently, the holders of the said items, being permanent employees, enjoy security of tenure as guaranteed under the Constitution." — The SC applied this to the Senior Legal Officer and Legal Officer II items held by the legal subordinates.
• "The facts clearly show that respondents protested their termination with the Civil Service Commission within a month from the time of their termination. The Court holds that the said protest was filed within a reasonable period of time." — The SC rejected estoppel and treated the protest as timely.

• Cadiente vs. Santos, 142 SCRA 280 (1986) — Controlling precedent; held a city legal officer primarily confidential; applied by analogy to the provincial attorney and distinguished as not extending to legal subordinates.
• Besa vs. Philippine National Bank, 33 SCRA 330 — Followed for the primarily confidential nature of legal counsel positions; distinguished as not applying to the legal staff or subordinates.
• Corpus vs. Cuaderno, 13 SCRA 591 (1965) — Followed; tenure of primarily confidential officials ends upon loss of confidence, and cessation involves no removal.
• Hernandez vs. Villegas, 14 SCRA 548 — Followed; termination of a primarily confidential officer on loss of confidence is expiration of term, not removal.
• Ingles vs. Mutuc, 26 SCRA 171 — Followed; explained that the term of a primarily confidential officer is indefinite until the appointing power ends the services, at which point the term expires.
• Claudio vs. Subido, 40 SCRA 481 (1971) — Cited in Cadiente; held a city legal officer requires the utmost confidence of the mayor.
• Pinero vs. Hechanova, 18 SCRA 417 — Cited; defined "primarily confidential" and distinguished positions not primarily confidential.
• De los Santos vs. Mallare, 87 Phil. 289 — Cited in Pinero; source of the definition of "primarily confidential."

• Section 19, Republic Act No. 5185 — Created the positions of provincial attorney and city legal officer and categorized their services as "trusted services"; the SC relied on this to treat the provincial attorney as the counterpart of the city legal officer and as primarily confidential.
• Section 38(c), Chapter 7, Book 4, Revised Administrative Code of 1987 — Granted the provincial attorney administrative supervision and control over the acts and decisions of subordinates; the SC used this to show that legal work can be delegated and that the confidential head can review, approve, reverse, or modify subordinates' acts, protecting the client without making the subordinates confidential.
• Civil Service Law — The SC classified the legal assistants or subordinates as permanent classified employees, not confidential, and held that they enjoy security of tenure.
• Constitution — Security of Tenure — The majority invoked the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure for permanent employees and applied it to the legal subordinates.

• Justice Padilla (Concurring and Dissenting) — Concurred in the majority's classification of the legal assistants or subordinates of the provincial attorney as highly technical, permanent employees with security of tenure under the civil service system.
• Justice Sarmiento (Concurring and Dissenting) — Concurred in the first part of the ponencia holding that the provincial attorney is primarily confidential and that termination follows loss of confidence by the provincial governor.

• Justice Padilla (Concurring and Dissenting) — Dissented from the majority's treatment of the provincial attorney; argued the provincial attorney is an employee of the provincial government, not part of the governor's personal or confidential staff, and may not be removed except for cause under the civil service law; the CSC classified the position as career and permanent; the governor's loss-of-confidence reason was vague and unsubstantiated; he voted to dismiss the petition and affirm the CSC rulings.
• Justice Sarmiento (Concurring and Dissenting) — Dissented from the second part; argued the legal assistants or subordinate lawyers should also be considered primarily confidential because there is no substantial distinction between their functions and those of the provincial attorney, and their termination should likewise follow loss of confidence.