G.R. No. L-17162; October 31, 1964
MIGUEL P. ARRIETA, petitioner, vs. HONORIO BELLOS, as Deputy Governor of Negros Oriental, and SERAFIN L. TEVES, as Governor of Negros Oriental, respondents.

FACTS

Miguel P. Arrieta was appointed Deputy Governor of Negros Oriental in April 1952. On January 3, 1956, he obtained a 103-day leave of absence from the newly elected Governor, Serafin L. Teves, and was granted permission to seek a transfer to another government branch. Simultaneously, on January 1, 1956, Teves appointed Honorio Bellos as Deputy Governor, replacing Arrieta. On January 11, 1956, Teves approved Arrieta’s leave but conditioned that his services would be terminated upon its expiration unless a new position could be found for him.
Arrieta sought opinions from various executive officials, including the Civil Service Commissioner, who opined on July 2, 1956, that the position was not primarily confidential and recommended his reinstatement. However, on July 12, 1956, the Negros Oriental Provincial Board passed a resolution declaring the position as primarily confidential, subject to presidential approval. Governor Teves appealed the reinstatement directive to the President. On August 27, 1956, the Executive Secretary, by authority of the President, officially declared the position of Deputy Governor as primarily confidential.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the position of Deputy Governor of Negros Oriental is primarily confidential in nature, thereby allowing the Governor to terminate Arrieta’s services at his discretion.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, ruling that the position of Deputy Governor is primarily confidential. The legal logic rests on the nature of the duties involved. The Court found that the Deputy Governor’s functions are not fixed by statute but are defined and delegated by the Provincial Governor. These duties, which include inspecting local offices and investigating complaints, require the Deputy to act as the Governor’s direct representative, demanding a relationship of close intimacy and absolute trust beyond ordinary confidence in an employee’s ability. This aligns with the established doctrine that a primarily confidential position implies freedom of intercourse without fear of betrayal on confidential state matters.
Furthermore, the presidential ruling dated August 27, 1956, which formally classified the position as primarily confidential, is declaratory of its true nature. Arrieta’s challenge to this classification’s retroactive application fails because the ruling merely affirmed the inherent confidential character of the office that existed at the time of his separation. The Court also noted that Arrieta’s own actions, including his application for a transfer, implied an acknowledgment that he could be lawfully separated from his post. Given this finding on the nature of the position, the Court deemed it unnecessary to resolve the ancillary issues regarding the timeliness of the quo warranto petition or Arrieta’s alleged acquiescence. The petition was dismissed.