CASE 57
pleasure officers holding policy-
RAUL R. INGLES, ROALDO G.
ADVIENTO, ISABEL C. CORPUS,
CONSUELO M. VILLANUEVA and
ESPERANZA M. GUTIERREZ
vs.
AMELITO R. MUTUC and BALDOMERO
DAVOCOL
Facts:
Plaintiffs herein are civil service
eligibles, holding positions, under the
Office of the President. January, 1962,
plaintiffs received a communication of the
then Executive Secretary, Amelito R.
Mutuc, advising them that their services in
the Government were terminated.
Plaintiffs appealed from this action to the
President. On February 1962, they
received a letter of Mr. Mutuc, acting "by
authority of the President," denying the
reconsideration. On March 1962, Plaintiffs
commenced the action.
Issue:
whether or not the plaintiffs are
occupying positions which are primarily
confidential and, therefore, are subject to
removal at the pleasure of the appointing
power
Ruling:
NO. As regards to the nature of the
positions held by plaintiffs for "The
President's Private Office," they handled
"confidential matters"; and that, "while
plaintiffs perform purely clerical work, the
papers handled by them are highly
confidential in nature but does not suffice
to characterize their " positions" as
primarily confidential. Indeed, it is admitted
that plaintiffs, handle "other routine
matters," and it has not even been shown
that their work is, at least, principally
confidential.
1
“Regarding the power to dismiss at
determining, primarily confidential and
highly technical positions, the Court
added, in the case of De los Santos vs.
Mallare, that "it may truly be said that the
good of the service itself demands that
appointments coming under this category
be terminable at the will of the officer that
makes them."
CASE 58
Delos Santos v. Mallare
Facts:
Eduardo de los Santos, the
petitioner, was appointed City Engineer of
Baguio on July 16, 1946, by the President,
appointment which was confirmed by the
Commission on Appointments on August
6, and on the 23rd of that month, he
qualified for and began to exercise the
duties and functions of the position. On
June 1, 1950, Gil R. Mallare was extended
an ad interim appointment by the
President to the same position, after
which, on June 3, the Undersecretary of
the Department of Public Works and
Communications directed Santos to report
to the Bureau of Public Works for another
assignment. Santos refused to vacate the
office, and when the City Mayor and the
other officials named as Mallare's co-
defendants ignored him and paid Mallare
the salary corresponding to the position,
he commenced these proceedings.
Issue:
whether or not the removal of
the petitioner from his present position for
assignment to another position violates
Section 4, Article XII of the 1935
Constitution which provides that "No
officer or employee in the Civil Service
shall be removed or suspended except
for cause as provided by law."
Held:

Yes. Section 1, Article XII of the
Constitution ordains: "A Civil Service
embracing all branches and subdivisions
of the Government shall be provided by
law. Appointments in the Civil Service,
except as those which are policy-
determining, primarily confidential or
highly technical in nature, shall be made
only according to merit and fitness, to be
determined as far as practicable by
competitive examination." Section 670 of
the Revised Administrative Code provided
that "Persons in the Philippine civil service
pertain either to the classified service,"
and went on to say that "The classified
service embraces all not expressly
declared to be in the unclassified service."
Then section 671 described persons in the
unclassified service as "officers, other than
the provincial treasurers and assistant
directors of bureaus or offices, appointed
by the President of the Philippines, with
the consent of the Commission on
Appointments of the National Assembly,
and all other officers of the government
whose appointments are by law vested in
the President of the Philippines alone."
Three specified classes of
positions — policy-determining,
primarily confidential and highly
technical — are excluded from the merit
system and dismissal at pleasure of
officers and employees appointed therein
is allowed by the Constitution. None of
these exceptions obtain in the present
case.
The office of city engineer is
neither primarily confidential, policy-
determining, nor highly technical. A
confidential position denotes not only
confidence in the aptitude of the appointee
for the duties of the office but primarily
close intimacy which insures freedom of
intercourse without embarrassment or
freedom from misgivings of betrayals of
personal trust or confidential matters of
state. Nor is the position of city engineer
policy-determining. A city engineer does
not formulate a method of action for the
2
government or any of its subdivisions. His
job is to execute policy, not to make it. With
specific reference to the City Engineer of
Baguio, his powers and duties are
carefully laid down for him be section 2557
of the Revised Administrative Code and
are essentially ministerial in character.
Finally, the position of city engineer is
technical but not highly so. A city engineer
is not required nor is he supposed to
possess a technical skill or training in the
supreme or superior degree, which is the
sense in which "highly technical" is
employed in the Constitution. There are
hundreds of technical men in the classified
civil service whose technical competence
is not lower than that of a city engineer. As
a matter of fact, the duties of a city
engineer are eminently administrative in
character and could very well be
discharged by non-technical men
possessing executive ability.
CASE 59
TOMAS BESA, petitioner,
vs.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK,
respondent
Facts:
The constitutional safeguard against
removal from office except for cause is
invoked by petitioner Tomas Besa,
Appointed Chief Legal Counsel with the
rank of Vice-President of respondent
Philippine National Bank in 1962, he was
shifted by virtue of a resolution of
respondent Bank on October 19, 1966, to
the office of its President, respondent
Roberto S. Benedicto, as Consultant on
Legal Matters, with respondent Conrado
E. Medina being assigned to his position.
The justification for such a move was
Resolution No. 1053 of respondent Board
of Directors of the Bank, wherein it was
expressly stated "that Vice President
Tomas Besa be shifted to the Office of the
President as Consultant on Legal Matters,
without change in salary and other
privileges."
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner was removed
from his position.
Ruling:
There was no removal, what did take place
was a termination of official relation.
Accepting as he did the position of chief
legal adviser, the essence of which is the
utmost degree of confidence, As was
made clear by Justice J. B. L. Reyes, who
penned the opinion: "The tenure of officials
holding primarily confidential positions
(such as private secretaries of public
functionaries) ends upon loss of
confidence, because their term of office
lasts only as long as confidence in them
endures; and thus their cessation involves
no removal.
CASE 60
DOLORES A. PAREDES, Petitioner, vs.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND
REMEDIOS A. AMOR, Respondents.
Facts:
Petitioner Dolores Paredes assails the
decision of the Merit Systems Protection
Board (MSPB) directing the revocation of
her appointment as HS Project
Coordinator in the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board and declaring the said
position vacant.
Petitioner Paredes entered the
government as a public school teacher.
Later she transferred to the General
Auditing Office as Auditing Clerk detailed
at the Philippine Tobacco Administration.
Then joined Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission as Project Officer
II. She was promoted to H.S. Project
Officer III then to H.S. Project Officer II and
3
was extended a promotional appointment
as H.S. Project Supervisor which in this
case has been contested by Atty.
Remedios A. Amor, H.S. Project Officer IV,
on the ground that she is the qualified
next-in-rank.
Issue:
Whether or not CSC committed a grave
abuse of discretion in the revocation of
petitioner Paredes' appointment as HS
Project Coordinator and in declaring the
said position vacant.
Ruling:
In the exercise of its quasi-judicial
functions, Civil Service Commission
committed an error in applying the
Qualification Standards which it admitted it
has not approved. Exigency of the service
does not justify the use of Qualification
Standard it has not approved. However,
the error is not so grave as would warrant
the nullification of its resolution declaring
the position of H.S. Project Coordinator
vacant. The absence of a Qualification
Standard does not justify the appointment
of petitioner Paredes or anybody for that
matter to the contested position. Without a
duly approved Qualification Standard it
would be extremely difficult if not
impossible for the appointing authority to
determine the qualification and fitness of
the applicant for the particular position.
Without an approved Qualification
Standard, the appointing authority would
have no basis or guide in extending a
promotional or original appointment in
filling up vacant positions in its department
or agency. Public interest therefore
requires that a Qualification Standard
must exist to guide the appointing authority
not only in extending an appointment but
also in setting contested appointments.
In declaring the Position of HS Project
Coordinator vacant; CSC has therefore
not abused its discretion as the
Qualification Standards of the HSRC
which should be the basis and guide for
appointment has not been approved by the
Civil Service Commission.
CASE 61
MELANIO S. TORIO, Petitioner,
vs.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
NATIONAL PRINTING OFFICE, OFFICE
OF THE PRESS SECRETARY and
EFREN CAMACHO, Respondents.
-------------------
JAIME ESPANOLA, Petitioner,
vs.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, LETTY
CANGAYDA, NATIONAL PRINTING
OFFICE and THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESS SECRETARY
FACTS: Executive Order No. 285 issued
on July 25, 1987 abolished the General
Services Administration (GSA) including
all offices and agencies under it. The
General Printing Office (GPO) which was
under the GSA was merged with the
relevant printing units of the Philippine
Information Agency (PIA) and out of the
merger arose the National Printing Office
(NPO) which was placed under the control
and supervision of the Office of the Press
Secretary (OPS).
Melanio Torio, was the Chief of the
Production Staff of the Printing Division,
PIA, while the petitioner, Jaime Espanola,
was a Bindery Foreman at the PIA. They
continued discharging their functions in a
hold-over capacity after the PIA was
merged with the GSA. in accordance with
the new staffing pattern of the NPO,
petitioner Torio was temporarily appointed
as Assistant Operations Superintendent of
Printing while petitioner Espanola was
appointed as Temporary Supervising
4
Book-binder. Espanola was issued
another appointment as Supervising
Bookbinder with a permanent status.
Eventually, the position of both were
upgraded. Torio was given a permanent
position as Espanola, while Espanola on
the other hand, was given only a notice of
the upgrading of his position inasmuch as
he was already holding it in a permanent
capacity.
Prior to the appointments of the petitioners
to the permanent items, protests were
lodged with the CSC. The protestants
were Efren Camacho and Letty Cangayda,
the private respondents.
The CSC issued a resolution in CSC Case
No. 796 revoking the appointment of Torio
and ordering those qualified, including
Camacho, to be evaluated for the position.
Subsequently, on February 5, 1991, the
CSC rendered another resolution in CSC
Case No. 832 cancelling Espanola’s
appointment and ordering the
reappointment of Cangayda to the
position.
These two consolidated petitions assail
the resolutions of the Civil Service
Commission (CSC) revoking the
appointment of herein petitioners on the
ground that they lacked the necessary civil
service eligibility at the time of the
issuance of their appointments
ISSUE: Whether or not the revoking of the
appointment of petitioners by the CSC
were valid
RULING: A permanent appointment is not
a continuation of the temporary
appointment—these are two distinct acts
of the appointing authority. The fact that
the appointees in the two appointments
are one and the same person is purely
incidental. Any irregularities in the former
appointment are not to be automatically
carried over to the latter. If the protest is
directed against the temporary
appointment, it would be illogical to carry-
over the merits of the protest to the protest as a continuing one. The same
subsequent permanent appointment. holds true for the protest lodged by
Camacho.
The preceding ruling should not be
construed to mean, however, that by the
mere expedient of appointing the
temporary appointee to a permanent
status, the appointing authority can
deprive the protestant of an opportunity to
question the appointment. First, the
protestant is not precluded from filing
another protest directed against the
permanent appointment. Second, if it can
be shown that the appointment was
purposely done to moot the protest or is
characterized by malice, then corrective
action can be taken and, moreover, the
erring officials can be proceeded against
administratively.

It must be emphasized that if a protest filed

against a temporary appointment is
carried over to the subsequent permanent
appointment to the same position of the
same person, an anomalous situation will
arise wherein the permanent appointee’s
security to his position would be
jeopardized by considerations outside of
his permanent appointment.

The questioned resolutions of the CSC

should be declared inapplicable to the
petitioners because they refer to the
temporary appointments which had
already lapsed when they were issued.

At the time of the temporary appointment

of petitioner Espanola, a civil service
eligible who was willing to accept the
position was available in the person of
private respondent Cangayda. Apparently,
there was disregard of the mandate of the
law when Espanola’s temporary
appointment was issued. Nevertheless,
the petitioner has correctly pointed out that
the protest lodged by private respondent
Cangayda had become moot and
academic inasmuch as petitioner
Espanola’s temporary appointment had
already lapsed on February 28, 1989. It is
erroneous for the CSC to treat Cangayda’s