GR L 36845; (September, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-36845 August 21, 1987
CITY MAYOR EULOGIO E. BORRES, CITY OF CEBU, CITY COUNCIL OF CEBU, CEBU CITY TREASURER and CEBU CITY AUDITOR, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GERMAN O. LUMAPAC and BARTOLOME ELIZONDO, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents German O. Lumapac and Bartolome Elizondo were appointed to positions in the Office of the Vice-Mayor of Cebu City. Following the 1967 local elections, Sergio Osmeña Jr. was elected Mayor and petitioner Eulogio Borres as Vice-Mayor. Osmeña did not assume office, making Borres the Acting Mayor. Upon assuming office on January 3, 1968, Borres terminated the services of Lumapac and Elizondo “due to lack of confidence.” Their positions were subsequently filled by new appointees.
The terminated employees filed a petition for mandamus with damages before the Court of First Instance of Cebu, seeking a declaration that their removal was unlawful, and praying for reinstatement with back salaries. The trial court ruled in their favor, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether or not the termination of the services of private respondents, who held primarily confidential positions, by the Acting Mayor on the ground of “lack of confidence” was lawful.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the decision of the Court of Appeals and declared the termination lawful. The Court held that the positions of Senior Security and Security Guard in the Office of the Vice-Mayor were primarily confidential in nature. The legal logic is anchored on the established doctrine that occupants of primarily confidential positions hold office at the pleasure of the appointing authority. Their tenure is co-terminous with the trust and confidence of the appointing power.
Consequently, when that confidence is withdrawn, the incumbent is not considered “removed” or “dismissed” from office in a disciplinary sense. Instead, the legal effect is that the incumbent’s “term” has merely “expired.” Therefore, the termination of private respondents by Acting Mayor Borres on the ground of lack of confidence was a valid exercise of his prerogative and did not constitute an illegal dismissal. The Court found no need to reinstate the employees or award back wages, as their separation from service was in accordance with law.