G.R. No. L-24418 January 25, 1967
ALEJANDRO FERRER, TEODORO P. FOJAS, OCTAVIO HERNANDEZ and JESUS GARCIA, petitioners-appellants, vs. HON. RUFINO HECHANOVA, in his capacity as Secretary of Finance, HON. JOSE B. LINGAD, in his capacity as Commissioner of Customs and THE AUDITOR OF THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioners Alejandro Ferrer, Teodoro P. Fojas, Octavio Hernandez, and Jesus Garcia were dismissed from the Bureau of Customs by the Secretary of Finance and the Commissioner of Customs on the ground of “loss of confidence.” Ferrer held a provisional appointment as Special Agent, having previously been a Special Police Officer, and was not a civil service eligible. Fojas was a permanent employee appointed as Special Agent and was a second grade civil service eligible. Garcia was a regular and permanent employee as Special Police Officer but had no civil service eligibility. Hernandez was a regular and permanent employee as Police Private but was not a civil service eligible. After their dismissals, they requested reinstatement, which was denied, leading them to file a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Manila to compel their reinstatement with back salaries and attorney’s fees. The lower court dismissed the petition, finding that the positions were in the classified service and that petitioners, except Fojas, held temporary appointments due to lack of appropriate civil service eligibility. As to Fojas, the court held his second grade eligibility was not appropriate for the position of Special Agent.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners, who were dismissed for “loss of confidence,” are entitled to reinstatement with back salaries, considering the nature of their appointments and their civil service eligibility status.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the lower court. It ruled that the positions held by the petitioners were not primarily confidential in nature, as determined by the Civil Service Act of 1959 (R.A. 2260), and there was no evidence showing such close intimacy and trust between the appointing power and the appointees to support that finding. Consequently, “loss of confidence” was not a valid ground for dismissal. Petitioners Ferrer, Hernandez, and Garcia, lacking the requisite civil service eligibility, were deemed to hold provisional appointments. Petitioner Fojas, whose second grade civil service eligibility was not appropriate for the position of Special Agent, was also considered a provisional appointee. As provisional appointees in the classified service, they were ordered reinstated with payment of back salaries from their dismissal dates until reinstatement or replacement by civil service eligibles. Their reinstatement was without prejudice to their replacement by eligibles, and they could not continue in their positions as provisional appointees for more than thirty (30) days from the appointing officer’s receipt of the appropriate certificate of eligibles.