G.R. No. 178321 - People vs. Conrado Laog y Ramin

On January 20, 1960, petitioner Melania C. Salazar was appointed as a "confidential agent" in the Office of the Auditor General, Government Service Insurance System, with an annual compensation of P3,120.00, effective January 27, 1960.
Her appointment was duly noted by the Commissioner of Civil Service under Section 5, paragraph (j) of Republic Act No. 2260, subject to standard physical and medical examinations.
On March 28, 1962, she was extended another appointment via promotion as "confidential agent" with an increased annual compensation of P3,300.00, effective April 1, 1962.
Her salary was subsequently adjusted on August 28, 1964, to P4,200.00 per annum, effective July 1, 1964.
Further endorsement on February 12, 1965 by the Acting Deputy Commissioner of the Civil Service confirmed her qualification in the general examination held on February 27, 1965, thereby approving her previously provisional appointment under Section 24(c) of Republic Act No. 2260, again subject to the usual examinations.
On October 7, 1965, another salary adjustment increased her pay to P5,500.00 per annum, effective July 1, 1965.

On March 18, 1966, petitioner received a notice from the Auditor General informing her that her services as "confidential agent" were terminated effective at the close of office hours on March 31, 1966.
Immediately on March 31, 1966, following a favorable recommendation by the Auditor of the Government Service Insurance System, the Auditor General appointed her to the position of Junior Examiner in his office, with an initial annual salary of P2,400.00.
This new appointment was approved by the Commission of Civil Service under Section 24(c) of Republic Act No. 2260, with the observation that general clerical eligibility was not appropriate for the position involved.
Petitioner assumed the position of Junior Examiner on the same day, and her salary was later adjusted to P2,580.00 per annum effective July 1, 1966.

On December 27, 1966, petitioner wrote to the Commissioner of Civil Service requesting reinstatement to her former position as "confidential agent"; however, no action was taken on her request.
On March 18, 1967, she filed a petition for mandamus with the Supreme Court (docketed G.R. No. L-37256) to compel the Auditor General to reinstate her effective April 1, 1968, but the petition was dismissed without prejudice.
Subsequently, she filed a proper action in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking an order to compel the Auditor General to reinstate her as "confidential agent."

The dispute centers on whether the position held by the petitioner in the Office of the Auditor, GSIS qualifies as primarily confidential.
The determination of the position’s character is pivotal because primarily confidential positions can be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing authority.
Executive Order No. 265 plays a critical role as it declares certain positions, including that of confidential agents, to be primarily confidential unless expressly directed otherwise by the President.

Jurisprudence such as Delos Santos vs. Mallari and discussions in Ingles vs. Mutuc clarify that primarily confidential positions are excluded from the merit system and are subject to termination when the appointing power withdraws its confidence.
Additional cases (Summers vs. Ozaeta and Agapuyan vs. Ledesma) demonstrate that acceptance of another appointment may be interpreted as an abandonment of one’s former position.
The legal discussion also includes the understanding that termination in a primarily confidential position is not a “removal” per se, but rather an expiration of the incumbent’s term as defined by the discretion of the appointing authority.

Whether the termination of petitioner’s appointment as "confidential agent" on the ground of loss of confidence was valid considering the nature of the position.
Whether the declaration of the position as primarily confidential under Executive Order No. 265 justifies such termination without invoking security of tenure safeguards.

Whether petitioner’s acceptance of the job as Junior Examiner, which involved taking her oath, performing its duties, and receiving a salary, constitutes a clear abandonment of her former appointment as "confidential agent."
If such acceptance signals a deliberate relinquishment of her previous position, thereby barring any claim for reinstatement in that role.