Hilario vs. Civil Service Commission

The position of City Legal Officer is primarily confidential and co-terminous with the appointing authority. The tenure of a confidential appointee automatically expires upon the cessation of the appointing authority’s term, and the Civil Service Commission, exercising its disciplinary jurisdiction under Section 47 of the Administrative Code, may directly hear a complaint and issue an order preventing the former officer from continuing to discharge the office.

On August 18, 1986, petitioner Nescito C. Hilario was appointed City Attorney of Quezon City by OIC Mayor Brigido R. Simon, Jr. under the Freedom Constitution. On June 30, 1992, Ismael Mathay, Jr. assumed office as the newly elected mayor. On July 24, 1992, Mayor Mathay issued a letter to petitioner stating that, pursuant to Section 481, Article II of the Local Government Code of 1991, the position of City Legal Officer is co-terminous with the appointing authority, and thus petitioner was considered resigned as of June 30, 1992. On July 1, 1993, Vice Mayor Charito L. Planas filed a complaint with the Civil Service Commission accusing petitioner of usurpation and other administrative offenses. The CSC issued resolutions barring petitioner from holding the office and stopping his salary, prompting petitioner to seek annulment of the resolutions via certiorari.

• Appointment and Legal Framework. Petitioner was appointed City Attorney of Quezon City on August 18, 1986 by OIC Mayor Brigido R. Simon, Jr., during the effectivity of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, the then Local Government Code. At that time, Republic Act No. 5185 had earlier categorized the services of the city legal officer as “full time and trusted services.”

• The Mayor’s Letter. On July 24, 1992, newly elected Mayor Ismael Mathay, Jr. wrote to petitioner, invoking Section 481, Article II of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) and informing him that he was considered resigned as of June 30, 1992 because the position of city legal officer was co-terminous with the appointing authority.

• Complaint to the CSC. On July 1, 1993, respondent Vice Mayor Charito L. Planas filed a complaint directly with the Civil Service Commission, charging petitioner and one Jose L. Pecson with usurpation, grave misconduct, being notoriously undesirable, gross insubordination, and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

• CSC Resolutions. In Resolution No. 93-4067 dated September 21, 1993, the CSC held administrative disciplinary action in abeyance but ordered that petitioner not be allowed to continue holding the position. In Resolution No. 94-3336 dated June 23, 1994, the CSC denied reconsideration and ordered the city cashier to stop payment of petitioner’s salaries under pain of personal liability for refund.

• Mayor’s Subsequent Conduct. Petitioner claimed that despite the July 24, 1992 letter, Mayor Mathay continued to give him legal assignments, which petitioner argued indicated that the mayor still reposed trust and confidence in him. The record showed, however, that Mayor Mathay never issued a formal reappointment, did not retract his letter, and raised no objection to the CSC’s directive to stop petitioner from holding office.

• Confidential Nature of Position: Petitioner argued that his appointment as City Attorney was governed by Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, which did not declare the position confidential. He maintained that Republic Act No. 5185, which classified the position as involving “trusted services,” was impliedly repealed by BP 337 when the latter expanded the duties of the city legal officer.

• CSC’s Lack of Authority: Petitioner contended that only the city mayor had the power to discipline or remove him directly; the CSC’s role was merely appellate. He claimed that the CSC usurped the mayor’s exclusive prerogative by ordering him barred from office.

• Prospective Application of R.A. 7160: Petitioner maintained that the co-terminous provision under Section 481 of the Local Government Code of 1991 applied only to future appointments and could not affect incumbents like himself.

• Estoppel by Continued Trust: Petitioner alleged that because Mayor Mathay continued to assign him legal work after the July 24, 1992 letter, the mayor still trusted him, and there was consequently no reason for him to vacate the office.

• Confidential Character and Co-Terminus Status: The Civil Service Commission countered that the position of city legal officer had been consistently held to be confidential and co-terminous with the appointing authority, as rooted in the “trusted services” language of Republic Act No. 5185 and reaffirmed in jurisprudence such as Griño v. CSC. BP 337 merely enumerated qualifications and duties without altering the confidential nature.

• Disciplinary Jurisdiction of the CSC: Respondent CSC argued that Section 47 of the Administrative Code expressly allowed a complaint to be filed directly with the Commission, which could then hear and decide the case. The order preventing petitioner from holding office fell within the CSC’s disciplinary and preventive powers.

• Proper Party Complainant: Private respondent Planas, although a public official, could bring a complaint directly to the CSC as any person aggrieved, and her complaint for usurpation was properly cognizable by the Commission.

• Confidential Nature of Position: Whether the position of City Legal Officer is primarily confidential and co-terminous with the appointing authority.

• Authority of the CSC: Whether the Civil Service Commission had jurisdiction to hear the complaint of Vice Mayor Planas and to issue an order barring petitioner from continuing in office.

• Retroactivity of the Local Government Code: Whether the co-terminous provision under Section 481 of R.A. 7160 applied to petitioner, who was appointed before its enactment.

• Effect of the Mayor’s Subsequent Conduct: Whether Mayor Mathay’s continued assignment of legal tasks to petitioner estopped the government from treating him as resigned or from enjoining him from discharging the office.

• Confidential Nature of Position: The position of city legal officer is primarily confidential. Republic Act No. 5185 expressly categorized the office as one requiring “full time and trusted services.” Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 merely enumerated qualifications, powers, and duties without removing that confidential character. Jurisprudence, notably Griño v. Civil Service Commission, has consistently held that the city legal officer and its counterpart provincial attorney render “trusted services” of the highest degree, making the positions co-terminous with the appointing authority.

• Authority of the CSC: The CSC acted within its authority. Section 47 of the Administrative Code allows a complaint to be filed directly with the Commission by any person, including a public official such as Vice Mayor Planas. The CSC may hear and decide the case or take preventive measures. The order directing that petitioner not be allowed to continue holding office was a valid exercise of that jurisdiction, not a usurpation of the mayor’s disciplinary power.

• Retroactivity of the Local Government Code: The co-terminous provision in Section 481 of R.A. 7160 did not create a new rule but merely reiterated the existing doctrine that a confidential appointee’s tenure is co-extensive with that of the appointing authority. Consequently, no impermissible retroactive application prejudiced petitioner.

• Effect of the Mayor’s Subsequent Conduct: Mayor Mathay’s silence throughout the CSC proceedings and his failure to issue a formal reappointment belied any intention to retain petitioner. The casual legal assignments did not constitute a renewal of the trust that underpins the position. The irresistible conclusion was that the mayor did not intend for petitioner to continue as city legal officer.

• Confidential Position Doctrine — A government position is primarily confidential when the law characterizes the services as “trusted” and the nature of the duties requires a relationship of utmost trust and confidence between the officer and the appointing authority. The city legal officer, as chief legal adviser and representative of the city, holds such a confidential position, and the term of office is co-terminous with the appointing mayor. Upon the cessation of the appointing authority’s term, the officer’s right to hold the office ceases absent a new appointment.

• CSC Disciplinary Jurisdiction — Under Section 47 of the Administrative Code (Executive Order No. 292), the Civil Service Commission may take cognizance of a complaint filed directly by any person against a government official or employee. The Commission may hear and decide the case itself or deputize another agency. It may likewise issue preventive measures, including an order barring an individual from discharging an office to which they are no longer entitled.

• “We have consistently held in previous cases that the position of City Legal Officer is a confidential one.”

• “A comparison of the functions, powers and duties of a city legal officer as provided in the Local Government Code with those of the provincial attorney of Iloilo would reveal the close similarity of the two positions. Said functions clearly reflect the highly confidential nature of the two offices and the need for a relationship based on trust between the officer and the head of the local government unit he serves. The ‘trusted services’ to be rendered by the officer would mean such trusted services of a lawyer to his client which is of the highest degree of trust.”

• “Nothing in the Administrative Code precludes the CSC from deciding a disciplinary case before it.”

• “If Mayor Mathay really intended to retain the services of petitioner as City Legal Officer, he could easily have done so by issuing a formal appointment to this effect. This he did not do.”

• Griño v. Civil Service Commission, 194 SCRA 458 (1991) — Followed as controlling precedent; held that the provincial attorney (counterpart of the city legal officer) holds a confidential position involving trusted services, and is co-terminous with the appointing authority.

• Besa v. Philippine National Bank, 33 SCRA 330 (1970); Claudio v. Subido, 40 SCRA 481 (1971); Villegas v. Subido, 41 SCRA 190 (1971) — Cited as consistent rulings that the position of City Legal Officer is confidential.

• Section 19, Republic Act No. 5185 — Characterized the city legal officer as rendering “full time and trusted services,” thereby establishing the confidential nature of the office.

• Section 188, Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 — Enumerated the qualifications, powers, and duties of the city legal officer without removing the confidential character rooted in Republic Act No. 5185.

• Section 481, Article II, Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) — Provided that the position of legal officer is co-terminous with the appointing authority; applied as a legislative reiteration of existing doctrine.

• Section 47, Administrative Code (Executive Order No. 292) — Granted the Civil Service Commission jurisdiction to hear and decide complaints filed directly by any person, and to issue necessary preventive orders.

Feliciano, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, and Francisco, JJ., concurred. Narvasa, C.J., took no part.

Justice Padilla concurred in a separate opinion. He expressed the view that the position of provincial or city attorney should be a career, not a confidential, position, since the attorney‑client relationship exists between the local government unit and the lawyer, and loyalty should run to the unit rather than solely to the appointing authority. He nevertheless concurred because Section 481 of the Local Government Code of 1991 made the position co‑terminous with the appointing authority, leaving him no choice in the matter.