GR L 36845; (August, 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 as Senior Security Guard and Security Guard, respectively, in the Office of the Vice-Mayor of Cebu City. Following the 1967 local elections, Sergio Osmeña Jr. and petitioner Eulogio Borres won as Mayor and Vice-Mayor. Osmeña Jr. 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 non-eligibles appointed by Borres.
The terminated employees filed a petition for mandamus with damages before the Court of First Instance of Cebu, seeking reinstatement and back salaries. The trial court ruled in their favor, declaring the dismissals illegal. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari, arguing that the positions were primarily confidential, thus terminable at the pleasure of the appointing authority.
ISSUE
Whether the termination of private respondents from their positions as security personnel in the Office of the Vice-Mayor was illegal, given the reason of “lack of confidence.”
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the positions held by Lumapac and Elizondo were primarily confidential in nature. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of confidential appointments. Employees holding primarily confidential positions serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. Their tenure is coterminous with the trust and confidence reposed in them. When this confidence is withdrawn, their term is deemed to have expired; they are not “removed” or “dismissed” in the disciplinary sense.
The Court cited the precedent in Ingles vs. Mutuc, which clarifies that the termination of a confidential employee is not a removal but an expiration of term. Since Borres, as the new Acting Mayor, expressed a loss of confidence in the respondents, their tenure lawfully ended. Consequently, their termination was valid and did not constitute an illegal dismissal. The Court found no need to address other issues, as the confidential nature of the positions was dispositive. The petition was granted, and the appellate court’s decision was set aside.