G.R. No. L-39456 May 7, 1990
ELIAS V. PACETE, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, THE HONORABLE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, MIGUEL PEÑALOSA, JR., in his capacity as City Auditor and in his personal capacity; and THE CITY TREASURER, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Elias V. Pacete was appointed City Attorney of General Santos City. In 1971, Mayor Antonio Acharon, who appointed him, was charged with murder, detained without bail, but was subsequently reelected. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that his detention constituted a temporary incapacity, justifying Vice-Mayor Erlindo Grafilo’s assumption as Acting Mayor. Acting Mayor Grafilo then suspended and subsequently removed Pacete as City Attorney on the ground of loss of confidence. This stemmed from Pacete’s legal opinion upholding Mayor Acharon’s authority to discharge his duties despite imprisonment, thereby impugning Grafilo’s authority.
Pacete appealed his removal to the Civil Service Commission, which directed his reinstatement pending appeal. Acting Mayor Grafilo disregarded this order and appointed a new City Attorney. Pacete filed a claim with the City Treasurer for back salaries covering his period of removal. The City Auditor referred the claim to the Auditor General, and subsequently, the Office of the President opined that Pacete’s termination was lawful and he was not entitled to back salaries. The Commission on Audit later disallowed his claim, prompting Pacete to file this petition seeking payment of backwages and damages against the City Auditor for refusing to pass his claim in audit.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether petitioner Elias V. Pacete, having been removed from his position as City Attorney on the ground of loss of confidence, is entitled to back salaries and damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that Pacete was not entitled to backwages or damages. The legal logic rests on the confidential nature of the position of City Attorney. The Court, citing precedents like Claudio v. Subido, held that the position of a City Legal Officer is “primarily confidential,” requiring the highest degree of trust and confidence between the officer and the appointing authority, akin to a lawyer-client relationship. The tenure of officials in primarily confidential positions lasts only as long as confidence endures.
Consequently, termination on the ground of loss of confidence does not constitute removal from office but rather an expiration of the term. Since Pacete’s separation was due to a valid loss of confidence, it was a lawful expiration of his term. Therefore, he had no right to remain in office or to receive compensation for a period during which he was not lawfully rendering service. Having established the legality of the termination, the Court also held that respondent City Auditor Miguel Peñalosa Jr. could not be held liable for damages, as his refusal to pass the claim in audit was pursuant to a lawful order from the Commission on Audit. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.