G.R. No. L-26838 May 29, 1970
TOMAS BESA, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK; HON. ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO, President of the Philippine National Bank; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Philippine National Bank; HON. ANTONIO M. DIAZ, BIENVENIDO M. JUAT, SIMEON G. MIRANDA, JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ISMAEL M. REINOSO, and JUAN TRIVINO, Members of the Board of Directors of the Philippine National Bank; and HON. CONRADO E. MEDINA, Actg. Asst. Vice-President, In-charge of the Loans Adjustment Dept., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Tomas Besa was appointed Chief Legal Counsel with the rank of Vice-President of the Philippine National Bank (PNB) in 1962. On October 19, 1966, the PNB Board of Directors passed Resolution No. 1053, shifting petitioner to the Office of the President as Consultant on Legal Matters, without change in salary and privileges. This was implemented by a letter-directive from PNB President Roberto S. Benedicto on October 20, 1966, which also designated respondent Conrado E. Medina as Vice-President and Chief Legal Counsel effective the same day. Petitioner sought reconsideration, which was denied. Respondents justified the transfer by asserting that the position of Chief Legal Counsel carries a special confidential lawyer-client relationship, giving the Bank the prerogative to choose the lawyer in whom it has confidence to head its Legal Department. Petitioner filed this action for certiorari, prohibition, and quo warranto, essentially arguing that his transfer constituted removal without cause in violation of the constitutional safeguard.

ISSUE

Whether the transfer of petitioner from the position of Chief Legal Counsel to Consultant on Legal Matters constitutes a removal from office without cause, in violation of the constitutional provision that “No officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause.”

RULING

No. The petition is dismissed. The constitutional safeguard against removal without cause does not apply to the petitioner’s case. The position of Chief Legal Counsel of the PNB is highly confidential in character, involving the utmost degree of confidence in a lawyer-client relationship. An incumbent of a primarily confidential position holds office at the pleasure of the appointing power; when such pleasure ceases, the incumbent is not “removed” but his term merely “expires.” Therefore, the action taken by the PNB Board was a termination of the official relation due to loss of confidence, not a removal requiring cause under the Constitution. The Court distinguished this from positions that are purely highly technical, to which the loss of confidence rule does not apply, noting that while the work of a Chief Legal Counsel is technical, the confidential aspect predominates, giving the client (the Bank) the right to terminate the relationship. The Court expressly limited its ruling to the validity of the Bank’s action regarding its Chief Legal Counsel and did not opine on similar actions involving other technical positions within the government.