Case Digest (G.R. No. 194962)
Facts:
The case of Tomas Besa vs. Philippine National Bank originated with petitioner Tomas Besa, who served as the Chief Legal Counsel of the Philippine National Bank (PNB) with the rank of Vice-President since his appointment on July 12, 1962. On October 19, 1966, the Board of Directors of PNB passed Resolution No. 1053, which resolved to transfer him to the Office of the President as a Consultant on Legal Matters, under the direction of President Roberto S. Benedicto, resulting in the appointment of Conrado E. Medina to succeed him as Chief Legal Counsel. Following this reorganization, Besa sought to contest the Board's action by filing a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and quo warranto, on the grounds that his removal from the position could be characterized as unconstitutional since he was not afforded the requisite due process or cause for removal. The resolution to transfer him did not change his salary or privileges, but Besa argued that the action constituted a remo
Case Digest (G.R. No. 194962)
Facts:
- Appointment and Position of Petitioner
- Petitioner Tomas Besa was appointed on July 12, 1962, as Chief Legal Counsel with the rank of Vice-President at the Philippine National Bank (PNB).
- His appointment was made in a context where the legal department required someone in whom the bank could have utmost confidence, a factor that carried both technical competence and a high degree of confidentiality.
- Transfer and Reassignment
- On October 20, 1966, a letter-directive issued by PNB President Roberto S. Benedicto transferred petitioner from his post as Chief Legal Counsel to the office of Consultant on Legal Matters.
- This shift was effectuated through Resolution No. 1053 of the PNB Board of Directors, which explicitly stated that the transfer would occur without any change in salary or privileges.
- Concurrently, Conrado E. Medina was designated as Vice-President and assumed the role of Chief Legal Counsel effective that same day.
- Attempt to Reconsider the Transfer
- On October 24, 1966, petitioner addressed a letter to both the Board of Directors and PNB President Benedicto seeking reconsideration of his reassignment.
- The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on October 27, 1966, as communicated by the Secretary of the Board.
- Respondents’ Position and Justification
- Respondents, including PNB President, the Board of Directors, and other designated members, admitted the sequence of events and defended the validity of the Board’s resolution.
- They argued that the transfer was justified on the basis of the confidential nature of the Chief Legal Counsel’s role, which allows the bank to choose or change its legal advisor according to its needs and confidence.
- Nature of the Position
- The Chief Legal Counsel position was underscored as being highly confidential, requiring a close lawyer-client relationship that permits significant discretion by the appointing authority.
- It was emphasized that unlike fixed-term civil service positions, such confidentiality-based roles do not carry an automatic guarantee against termination without cause.
Issues:
- Applicability of Constitutional Safeguards
- Whether the constitutional provision protecting civil service employees from removal without cause applies to petitioner's position as Chief Legal Counsel.
- Whether the transfer of petitioner constitutes a “removal” in the constitutional sense.
- Distinction Between Fixed-Term and Confidential Positions
- Whether the safeguard against removal without cause is limited only to positions with fixed or definite terms, as opposed to those held primarily at the pleasure of the appointing authority.
- Clarification of the legal differences between officials employed for their technical competence and those occupying roles defined by the confidence reposed in them.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)