Title
Cadiente vs. Santos
Case
G.R. No. L-35592
Decision Date
Jun 11, 1986
Petitioner, appointed as City Legal Officer, was terminated by a new mayor citing the position as "primarily confidential." SC ruled termination lawful, term expired due to loss of confidence; no reinstatement or back salaries.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-35592)

Facts:

  1. Appointment of Petitioner as City Legal Officer

    • On September 13, 1971, Medardo Ag. Cadiente (petitioner) was appointed by then Mayor Elias B. Lopez as City Legal Officer of Davao City.
    • The appointment was approved as "permanent" by the Civil Service Commission under Section 24(b) of R.A. 2260.
  2. Termination of Petitioner's Services

    • On January 6, 1972, the new City Mayor, Luis T. Santos (respondent), terminated Cadiente's services as City Legal Officer, citing the position as "primarily confidential" in nature.
    • The termination was based on a legal opinion from the City Fiscal of Davao City.
    • On the same day, respondent Atty. Victor Clapano was appointed as the new City Legal Officer.
  3. Civil Service Commission's Decision

    • Petitioner appealed to the Civil Service Commission, which ruled on March 2, 1972, that his termination was "without cause and without due process."
    • The Commission also stated that the position of City Legal Officer was not included in the non-competitive service under Section 5 of R.A. 2260.
  4. City Council Resolution

    • On April 7, 1972, the City Council of Davao City passed Resolution No. 210, recognizing Cadiente as the rightful City Legal Officer.
    • Despite this, respondents (City Mayor, City Treasurer, and City Auditor) refused to recognize Cadiente's entitlement to the position.
  5. Civil Service Commission's Indorsement on Clapano's Appointment

    • On February 8, 1972, the Civil Service Commission returned Clapano's appointment to the City Mayor, noting that Clapano was over 57 years old and required presidential approval under Section 6 of R.A. 728.
  6. Filing of Civil Case

    • Petitioner filed Civil Case No. 7571 for mandamus, quo warranto, and preliminary injunction, seeking reinstatement, invalidation of Clapano's appointment, and payment of back salaries and benefits.
  7. Trial Court's Decision

    • On August 23, 1972, the Court of First Instance of Davao City dismissed the case, ruling that the position of City Legal Officer was "primarily confidential" and belonged to the non-competitive service.
    • The court held that Cadiente held office at the pleasure of the City Mayor and that his termination did not constitute removal but an expiration of his term.
  8. Petition to the Supreme Court

    • Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking reinstatement and payment of back salaries.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Primarily Confidential Position

    • The Court reiterated that the position of City Legal Officer is primarily confidential, requiring the highest degree of trust and confidence from the appointing authority (the City Mayor).
    • Citing Claudio vs. Subido and Pinero vs. Hechanova, the Court emphasized that such positions involve close intimacy and freedom of communication, which are essential for effective performance.
  2. Expiration of Term vs. Removal

    • The Court distinguished between removal/dismissal and the expiration of a term for primarily confidential positions.
    • Loss of confidence results in the expiration of the term, not removal or dismissal. This principle was supported by Corpus vs. Cuaderno and Hernandez vs. Villegas.
    • Since petitioner's termination was due to loss of confidence, it did not violate constitutional protections against removal without cause.
  3. No Entitlement to Reinstatement or Back Salaries

    • As the termination was lawful and did not constitute removal, petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement or payment of back salaries.
    • The Court cited Ingles vs. Mutuc to explain that primarily confidential officers hold office at the pleasure of the appointing authority, and their term expires upon loss of confidence.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision, ruling that the position of City Legal Officer is primarily confidential and that petitioner's termination was lawful as it constituted the expiration of his term, not removal or dismissal. Consequently, petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement or back salaries.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.