G.R. No. L-23721 March 31, 1965
R. MARINO CORPUS, petitioner-appellant, vs. MIGUEL CUADERNO, SR., ET AL., respondents-appellants.

FACTS

R. Marino Corpus held the position of “Special Assistant to the Governor, In Charge of the Export Department” of the Central Bank, a position declared by the President as highly technical. On March 7, 1958, he was administratively charged by several employees with dishonesty, incompetence, neglect of duty, abuse of authority, oppression, conduct unbecoming a public official, and violation of internal regulations. The Monetary Board suspended him on March 18, 1958, and created a three-man investigating committee. The committee, after extensive hearings, concluded there was no basis for disciplinary action and recommended his immediate reinstatement in its final report dated May 5, 1959. Nevertheless, on July 20, 1959, the Monetary Board approved a resolution considering Corpus resigned as of his suspension date. The resolution cited its deliberation on the committee report and records, Corpus’s service record (including past cases from 1955), and the Governor’s formal statement of lost confidence in him, noting the position was primarily confidential and highly technical. Corpus moved for reconsideration, which was denied. He then filed an action for certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto, and damages with the Court of First Instance of Manila, which declared the Board resolution null and void, ordered his reinstatement, and awarded attorney’s fees. Both parties appealed.

ISSUE

Whether a public officer holding a position declared as “highly technical” may be validly removed from the Civil Service on the ground of loss of confidence by the appointing authority.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Court held that while the Constitution (Article XII, Section 1) exempts policy-determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical positions from the requirement of appointment based on merit and fitness as determined by competitive examination, it does not exempt such positions from the constitutional safeguard (Article XII, Section 4) that “No officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause as provided by law.” This absolute rule is reiterated in Section 132 of the Central Bank Charter (Republic Act 265). The Court distinguished primarily confidential positions, where tenure lasts as long as confidence endures, from highly technical positions requiring special skills and qualifications. Applying the loss of confidence rule to the latter would ignore the constitutional differentiation and be illogical, as it would deny security of tenure to highly skilled officers while granting it to ordinary technicians. The Court found that in this particular case, the alleged loss of confidence was a clear afterthought and pretext to cure the inability to substantiate the original administrative charges. Since the charges were unsubstantiated, there was no lawful cause for removal. The Court also noted that Corpus’s position, while declared highly technical, was not shown to be both highly technical and confidential. The award of damages by the lower court was also upheld.