G.R. No. 174658 - People vs. Dela Cruz

On August 18, 1986, petitioner Nescito C. Hilario was appointed as City Attorney of Quezon City by then OIC Mayor Brigido R. Simon, Jr. under the provisions of the Freedom Constitution of 1986.
His appointment was made under the legal framework then applicable, primarily influenced by Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, which detailed the qualifications, powers, and duties of the city legal officer.

On July 24, 1992, newly-elected Mayor Ismael Mathay, Jr. assumed office, succeeding Mayor Simon.
Mayor Mathay issued a letter stating that in the absence of a tendered resignation from petitioner, by virtue of Section 481, Article II of the Local Government Code of 1991, the position of City Legal Officer was deemed co-terminous with the appointing authority.
Consequently, petitioner was considered resigned as of June 30, 1992, despite his continued performance of legal assignments.

On July 1, 1993, Vice Mayor Charito L. Planas filed a complaint with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) against petitioner alleging various administrative offenses including usurpation, grave misconduct, and gross insubordination.
The complaint led to formal proceedings before the CSC concerning petitioner’s fitness and eligibility to continue serving as City Legal Officer.

Held in abeyance any administrative disciplinary action against petitioner.
Ordered that petitioner not be allowed to continue holding the position of City Legal Officer in Quezon City.

Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
On June 23, 1994, the CSC denied this motion by issuing Resolution No. 94-3336, which:

Reaffirmed Resolution No. 93-4067.
Ordered the withholding of petitioner’s salary, holding the City’s Cashier liable for any payments made thereafter.

Petitioner argued that his position as City Legal Officer was not “confidential” under the law, contending that Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 impliedly removed the confidential character of the office by expanding its duties.
He maintained that only the appointing authority (the Mayor) had the power to remove him from office, not the CSC.
Petitioner further contended that the co-terminous provision of the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160) did not apply to him as an incumbent officer, but only to future appointments.

Whether the position of City Legal Officer is a confidential one or a non-confidential, career position as implied by the existence of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 and Republic Act No. 5185.
Whether the expansion of duties under Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 impliedly removed the confidential character of the legal officer’s position.

Whether the Civil Service Commission had the authority to order the removal of petitioner from his post.
Whether the CSC’s actions usurped the powers of the Mayor who, under the administrative scheme, could have been deemed the sole authority in this matter.

Whether Republic Act No. 7160’s co-terminous provision, which ties the term of the legal officer to that of the appointing authority, applies only to future appointments or also to incumbents like petitioner.
The effect of Mayor Mathay’s actions and silence in interpreting and implementing the co-terminus principle.