G.R. No. 116041 March 31, 1995
NESCITO C. HILARIO, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and CHARITO L. PLANAS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Nescito C. Hilario was appointed City Attorney of Quezon City on August 18, 1986, by OIC Mayor Brigido R. Simon, Jr. On July 24, 1992, the newly-elected Mayor, Ismael Mathay, Jr., issued a letter to petitioner stating that, pursuant to Section 481 of the Local Government Code of 1991, which provides that the position of City Legal Officer is co-terminous with the appointing authority, and in the absence of a tender of resignation, petitioner was considered resigned as of June 30, 1992. On July 1, 1993, respondent Vice Mayor Charito L. Planas filed an administrative complaint against petitioner with the Civil Service Commission (CSC). On September 21, 1993, the CSC issued Resolution No. 93-4067, holding in abeyance any administrative disciplinary action but ruling that Hilario should not be allowed to continue holding the position of City Legal Officer. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CSC in Resolution No. 94-3336, which also ordered the Quezon City Cashier to stop payment of his salaries. Petitioner filed this petition for certiorari seeking to declare the CSC resolutions null and void.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner’s position as City Legal Officer is confidential.
2. Whether the Civil Service Commission had the authority to remove or terminate the services of petitioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit.
1. On the first issue, the Court ruled that the position of City Legal Officer is confidential. The Court examined Republic Act No. 5185, which created the position and described the services as “full time and trusted services,” and Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, which enumerated the qualifications and duties but did not remove its confidential nature. The Court cited previous jurisprudence, including Griño v. Civil Service Commission, which held that the position involves “trusted services” of the highest degree, reflecting a highly confidential nature and a relationship based on trust with the local chief executive.
2. On the second issue, the Court ruled that the CSC acted within its authority. The Court cited Section 47 of the Administrative Code, which grants the CSC jurisdiction to decide appeals in administrative disciplinary cases and allows a complaint to be filed directly with it by a private citizen, which includes a public official like Vice Mayor Planas. The CSC’s determination that petitioner was no longer entitled to hold the position was within its authority to hear and decide complaints. The Court also held that the co-terminous provision in the Local Government Code of 1991 (Section 481, R.A. 7160) is a reiteration of the principle that the confidential position is co-terminous with the appointing authority. The Court rejected petitioner’s argument that he was still trusted because he received assignments, noting that Mayor Mathay did not issue a new appointment and did not object to the CSC’s order, indicating an intention not to retain him.