G.R. No. L-20390 November 29, 1968
RAUL R. INGLES, ROALDO G. ADVIENTO, ISABEL C. CORPUS, CONSUELO M. VILLANUEVA and ESPERANZA M. GUTIERREZ, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. AMELITO R. MUTUC and BALDOMERO DAVOCOL, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiffs are civil service eligibles holding positions in the Office of the President under the 1961-1962 budget. They are Raul R. Ingles (Senior Executive Assistant II), Roaldo G. Adviento (Clerk I), Isabel C. Corpus (Supervising Clerk I), Consuelo M. Villanueva (Clerk I), and Esperanza M. Gutierrez (Stenographer). In January 1962, they received a communication from Executive Secretary Amelito R. Mutuc advising them that their services were terminated as of January 1, 1962. Their appeal for reconsideration, made to the President, was denied by the Executive Secretary acting by authority of the President. The plaintiffs filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging they were removed without cause and without due process, and sought reinstatement, payment of back salaries, and continuance of their duties. The defendants maintained that the plaintiffs occupied primarily confidential positions and were thus subject to removal at the pleasure of the appointing power. The trial court dismissed the complaint, resolving the issue in favor of the defendants.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiffs, as civil service eligibles holding positions in the Office of the President, occupy primarily confidential positions such that they are subject to removal at the pleasure of the appointing power without cause and without due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court. The Court held that the plaintiffs’ positions were not primarily confidential in nature. The fact that they at times handled confidential matters, while also handling other routine matters, was insufficient to characterize their positions as primarily confidential. The compensation and designations of their positions (e.g., Clerk I, Stenographer, Supervising Clerk I) suggested the purely or mainly clerical nature of their work. The burden was on the defendants to establish that the plaintiffs belonged to the excepted class of primarily confidential positions, which they failed to do. The Court clarified that an incumbent of a primarily confidential position holds office at the pleasure of the appointing power, and when such pleasure ceases, the officer is not “removed” but his term merely “expires.” However, this principle did not apply as the positions here were not proven to be primarily confidential. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ removal was illegal and contrary to law. They were entitled to reinstatement and payment of their corresponding emoluments from January 1, 1962, until actual reinstatement.