Griño v. CSC

Griño v.
CSC
Facts:
Sixto Demaisip was the first appointed Provincial Attorney of Iloilo. He held this
position from April 3, 1973 up to June 2, 1986 when he offered to resign and his
resignation was accepted by the then Acting Governor. In his resignation letter, Demaisip
recommended the elevation of Teotimo Arandela from Senior Legal Officer to Provincial
Attorney. OIC Governor Licurgo Tirador later on decided to appoint Arandela as the
Provincial Attorney. Cirilo Gelvezon, on the other hand, was promoted from Legal Officer
II to Senior Legal Officer. Teodolfo Dato-on and Nelson Geduspan were appointed to the
position of Legal Officer II.
On February 2, 1988, Simplicio Griño assumed office as the newly elected governor of
Iloilo. One month later, he informed Arandela and all the legal officers at the Provincial
Attorney's Office about his decision to terminate their services. In his letter, Griño made
mention of an article pertaining to the Iloilo office of the Provincial Attorney which
appeared in the Panay News and which "undermined that trust and confidence" that he
reposed on them. Demaisip was reappointed by Governor Griño as the Provincial
Attorney, The latter, on the other hand, arranged the replacements of the other legal
officers. Cirilo Gelvezon was replaced by Santos Aguadera, Nelson Geduspan was
replaced by petitioner Manuel Casumpang and Manuel Traviña took the place of Teodolfo
Dato-on.
On March 15, 1988, Governor Griño formally terminated the services of Arandela,
Gelvezon, Dato-on and Geduspan on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. This
action taken by the governor was appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board of the
Civil Service Commission.
The Merit Systems Board issued an Order declaring the termination illegal and
ordering that they be immediately restored to their positions with back salaries and
other emoluments due them. Griño appealed to the CSC. CSC affirmed. MR was denied.
Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the position of a provincial attorney and those of his legal
subordinates are primarily confidential in nature so that the services of those holding the
said items can be terminated upon loss of confidence
Held:
Yes with regards to the provincial attorney but no to those of his legal
subordinates. In Cadiente vs. Santos, it was held that the position of a city legal officer is
undeniably one which is primarily confidential while in Besa vs. Philippine National Bank,
where petitioner, who was the Chief Legal Counsel with the rank of Vice President of the
Philippine National Bank, questioned his being transferred to the position of Consultant
on Legal Matters in the Office of President, it was also held that said position to be
primarily confidential. A city legal officer appointed by a city mayor to work for and in
behalf of the city has for its counterpart in the province a provincial attorney appointed
by the provincial governor. In the same vein, a municipality may have a municipal
attorney who is to be named by the appointing power. The positions of city legal officer
and provincial attorney were created under Republic Act No. 5185 which categorized
them together as positions of "trust". A comparison of the functions, powers and duties
of a city legal officer as provided in the Local Government Code with those of the
provincial attorney of Iloilo would reveal the close similarity of the two positions. Said
functions clearly reflect the highly confidential nature of the two offices and the need for
a relationship based on trust between the officer and the head of the local government
unit he serves. The "trusted services" to be rendered by the officer would mean such
trusted services of a lawyer to his client which is of the highest degree of trust. The fact
that the position of Arandela as provincial attorney has already been classified as one
under the career service and certified as permanent by the Civil Service Commission
cannot conceal or alter its highly confidential nature. As in Cadiente where the position
of the city legal officer was duly attested as permanent by the CSC before the Supreme
Court declared that the same was primarily confidential, therefore, that the position of
Arandela as the provincial attorney of Iloilo is also a primarily confidential position. To
rule otherwise would be tantamount to classifying two positions with the same nature
and functions in two incompatible categories. This being the case, and following the
principle that the tenure of an official holding a primarily confidential position ends upon
loss of confidence.
However, with regards to the subordinates, their positions cannot be classified as
highly confidential. It is possible to distinguish positions in the civil service where lawyers
act as counsel in confidential and non-confidential positions by simply looking at the
proximity of the position in question in relation to that of the appointing authority.
Occupants whose positions would be considered confidential employees if the
predominant reason they were chosen by the appointing authority is the latter's belief
that he can share a close intimate relationship with the occupant which measures
freedom of discussion, without fear of embarrassment or misgivings of possible betrayal
of personal trust on confidential matters of state. Taking this into consideration, there is
no need to extend the professional relationship to the legal staff which assists the
confidential employer. Since the positions occupied by these subordinates are remote
from that of the appointing authority, the element of trust between them is no longer
predominant.
Padilla: Although the power to appoint the Provincial Attorney is vested in the
Governor, however, the said local public officer is an employee of the provincial
government to which he owes his loyalty, and not to the elected Governor, for he is not
part of the latter's personal or confidential staff. As a provincial public officer, the
Provincial Attorney's suspension, removal or transfer is subject to the provisions of the
civil service law, rules and regulations. In other words, he may not be removed or
suspended except for cause provided by law. More specifically, he may be removed from
office for incompetence, dishonesty, or other misconduct but not for the Governor's loss
of confidence in him, which by its very nature, can be as broad as anything imaginable.
CSC has classified the position of Provincial Attorney as a career service position and a
permanent one. It is but proper that a career position be developed for the Provincial
Attorney to minimize the "spoils system", whereby everytime a new Governor is elected,
he can appoint his own man by terminating the services of the one holding the position,
regardless of his competence and performance.
Sarmiento: While it is true that Cadiente and Besa only involved a city legal officer and
the PNB chief legal counsel, the same cases do not by any means preclude the
application of the said precedents to legal assistants or subordinate lawyers in
appropriate cases when such issue is squarely raised as presently. With regards to the
claim that the position of assistant legal officers or subordinate lawyers is highly
technical and not confidential, this contention is not supported by any evidence on
record or any basis in law. On the contrary, the function of an assistant or a subordinate
legal officer, as can be gleaned from the Local Government Code, is to "assist the chief
officer and perform such duties as the latter may assign him." I can not see how such a
function can be any less confidential than that of the chief legal officer. Absent any
showing of substantial distinctions between the nature of the work or function of the
provincial attorney and that of the legal assistants or subordinate lawyers, it is logical to
presume that both public officers handle confidential matters relating to the legal aspect
of provincial administration and that their relationship with their appointing power is that
of a lawyer and his client requiring utmost confidence and the highest degree of trust.

Griño v. CSC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Griño v. CSC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Griño v. CSC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Griño v.

You might also like