GR 91602; (February, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 91602 ; February 26, 1991
HON. SIMPLICIO C. GRIÑO, et al. vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, et al.
FACTS
Petitioner Simplicio Griño, upon assuming office as the newly elected Governor of Iloilo in February 1988, terminated the services of respondents Teotimo Arandela (Provincial Attorney), Cirilo Gelvezon (Senior Legal Officer), Teodulfo Dato-on, and Nelson Geduspan (both Legal Officers II) on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. Governor Griño then reappointed petitioner Sixto Demaisip as Provincial Attorney and appointed petitioners Santos Aguadera, Manuel Travina, and Manuel Casumpang to the other legal positions. The terminated employees appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) of the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The MSPB declared the termination illegal and ordered reinstatement with back wages. The CSC affirmed this decision in Resolution No. 89-736, prompting petitioners to seek review by the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the positions of Provincial Attorney and the subordinate legal officers (Senior Legal Officer and Legal Officers II) are primarily confidential, allowing their termination upon the appointing authority’s loss of confidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the position of Provincial Attorney is primarily confidential. Applying the precedent in Cadiente v. Santos, the Court emphasized that the relationship between a local chief executive and a legal officer is analogous to that of a lawyer and client, demanding the highest degree of trust and confidence on confidential matters of state. Consequently, the tenure of a Provincial Attorney is co-terminous with the confidence of the Governor; its termination upon loss of confidence constitutes an expiration of term, not a removal, and thus does not require a formal administrative charge.
However, the Court held that the subordinate legal officer positions (Senior Legal Officer and Legal Officers II) are not primarily confidential but are instead primarily technical in nature. Their duties, as defined by law, involve the performance of legal work requiring technical skill and knowledge, not necessarily the intimate advisory role requiring freedom of confidential intercourse with the Governor. Therefore, the termination of the respondents holding these subordinate positions on the ground of loss of confidence was illegal, as they are entitled to security of tenure under the civil service laws. The CSC resolutions were affirmed insofar as they ordered the reinstatement of the subordinate legal officers.