G.R. No. 86200 - Apex Mining Co., Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Petitioner Sixto Demaisip was the first appointed Provincial Attorney of Iloilo, serving from April 3, 1973, until his resignation on June 2, 1986.
In his resignation letter, Demaisip recommended the elevation of respondent Teotimo Arandela from Senior Legal Officer to Provincial Attorney.
OIC Governor Licurgo Tirador subsequently appointed Arandela as Provincial Attorney, while promoting other legal officers (e.g., respondent Cirilo Gelvezon to Senior Legal Officer and appointing respondents Teodolfo Dato-on and Nelson Geduspan to Legal Officer II positions).

On February 2, 1988, petitioner Simplicio Grino assumed office as the newly elected governor of Iloilo.
Approximately one month later, Governor Grino informed respondent Arandela and all legal officers about his decision to terminate their services.

The stated reason for termination was the loss of trust and confidence, allegedly triggered by a news article in the Panay News that "undermined that trust."

Demaisip was reappointed as Provincial Attorney.
Respondent Cirilo Gelvezon was replaced by petitioner Santos Aguadera.
Respondent Nelson Geduspan was replaced by petitioner Manuel Casumpang.
Petitioner Manuel Travina assumed the duties previously performed by respondent Teodolfo Dato-on.

On March 15, 1988, the termination of the respondents was formally effected by Governor Grino, with the grounds explicitly tied to a loss of trust and confidence.
The respondents appealed their termination to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) of the Civil Service Commission.

On March 9, 1989, the MSPB issued an order declaring the terminations illegal and directed their immediate restoration with back salaries and other emoluments.

The Civil Service Commission (CSC) upheld the MSPB’s order in Resolution No. 89-736 dated October 9, 1989.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied (Resolution No. 89-920), leading to the present petition for review seeking the reversal of these decisions.

Petitioners argued that the position of Provincial Attorney, similar to that of a City Legal Officer, is primarily confidential in nature and subject to termination upon loss of confidence.
Respondents contended that since the Provincial Attorney’s position had been classified as a career service and certified as permanent by the CSC, it could only be terminated for cause under the law.

Whether the position of Provincial Attorney is primarily confidential in nature, thereby subject to termination upon the loss of confidence of the appointing authority.

Is the confidential nature of legal positions such that the termination of the Provincial Attorney’s services upon loss of confidence merely constitutes the expiration of a discretionary term rather than a dismissal or removal?
How do established precedents (e.g., Cadiente vs. Santos, Corpus vs. Cuaderno) support or conflict with the classification of the position as primarily confidential despite its career service status?

Whether the doctrine applicable to primarily confidential positions should also extend to legal assistants or subordinate legal officers.

Are the legal assistants’ positions, being technical in character and traditionally classified as permanent, also subject to immediate termination based on an alleged loss of confidence?
Is there a justifiable basis for differentiating the treatment of the Provincial Attorney from that of his subordinates?