JAIME HERNANDEZ, SECRETARY OF FINANCE, ELEUTERIO CAPAPAS, COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAMES H. KEEFE, ACTING DIRECTOR OF SECURITY, AND JUAN C. PAJO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, PETITIONER…

Villegas versus Hernandez

The Case

This is the case of Villegas versus Hernandez, a quo warranto action brought by Epifanio Villegas, a lawyer and civil service eligible who had been appointed Director for Security of the Bureau of Customs, against the Secretary of Finance, the Commissioner of Customs, the Acting Director of Security, and the Executive Secretary. Villegas claimed that he had been removed from his office without cause and replaced by another, and he asked the courts to declare that removal illegal and to restore him to the position. The case matters because it settles a question every civil service examinee must know: whether a position declared primarily confidential is beyond the protection of the constitutional security of tenure, or whether even such a position may not be taken away except for cause.

Procedural History

Villegas filed an action for quo warranto in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The trial court gave judgment in his favor, with the right to collect back pay as Director for Security from January 1, 1958. The Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. The Secretary of Finance, the Customs Commissioner, the incumbent Director for Customs Security, and the Executive Secretary then appealed to the Supreme Court, which decided the case in June 1965.

Facts

Epifanio Villegas was appointed Director for Security of the Bureau of Customs, with compensation of 6,000 pesos, effective November 1, 1955. In 1956 he was sent to the United States to study enforcement techniques and customs practices under a technical assistance program. He returned in June 1957 and was shortly thereafter temporarily detailed to the Arrastre Service in place of Eleazar Manikan, while James Keefe was designated Acting Director for Security. Even while serving as acting Arrastre Superintendent, Villegas continued to receive his salary as Director for Security, including a salary adjustment from 6,000 pesos to 7,017.60 pesos.

On January 9, 1958, Secretary of Finance Jaime Hernandez proposed to the Office of the President the permanent appointment of Villegas as Arrastre Superintendent, describing the change as one of designation and status from a confidential position to a classified one. A few days later, the appointment of James Keefe as Director for Security was likewise proposed. On January 14, 1958, Executive Secretary Juan C. Pajo advised that the President had approved both appointments, effective January 1, 1958, and the appointments were prepared and signed by Secretary Hernandez.

Villegas did not learn of his own appointment and that of Keefe until February 28, 1958, when he discovered that Keefe was being paid the salary of Director for Security. On March 3, 1958, he served notice on Customs Commissioner Eleuterio Capapas that he was resuming the duties of his office, and he wrote the Auditor General, the Secretary of Finance, the Commissioner of Customs, the Budget Commissioner, and the Civil Service Commissioner asking them to disapprove Keefe's promotional appointment. When all else failed, he filed the quo warranto action.

Issues

• Whether or not the office of Director for Security in the Bureau of Customs is a primarily confidential position.
• Whether or not the Director for Security may be transferred to another position without cause.

Applicable Provisions

Section 671 of the Revised Administrative Code provides:

The following officers and employees constitute the unclassified services: (1) Positions which may be declared by the President of the Philippines, upon recommendation of the Commissioner of Civil Service, as policy-determining, primarily confidential or highly technical.

This provision identifies who may declare a position primarily confidential, and the Court of Appeals relied on it to hold that only the President can do so.

Article XII, Section 4 of the Constitution provides:

No officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause as provided by law.

This is the security-of-tenure guarantee on which the entire ruling turns, and the Court holds that it recognizes no exception.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found it unnecessary to decide whether the office of Director for Security is primarily confidential. Even assuming that it is, the Court held that the position remains subject to the constitutional guarantee that no officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause. Since Villegas' removal was concededly without cause, it was illegal. The Court explained that the constitutional provisions merely constitute policy-determining, primarily confidential, and highly technical positions as exceptions to the rule requiring appointments on the basis of merit and fitness determined by competitive examinations, but do not exempt such positions from the security-of-tenure guarantee. The Court also held that the statement in De los Santos versus Mallare that appointment to these three classes of positions is terminable at the will of the appointing power is a mere obiter dictum, correctly criticized as misleading. Officials in primarily confidential positions continue only so long as confidence in them endures, and the termination of their official relation on the ground of loss of confidence involves no removal but merely the expiration of the term of office. But as long as confidence endures, and it was not shown to have been lost in this case, the incumbent is entitled to continue in office.

On the second issue, the Court held that Villegas' removal from the office of Director for Security was without cause and therefore illegal, and that his transfer to the position of Arrastre Superintendent could not be sustained. The Court of Appeals had reasoned that only the President, upon recommendation of the Commissioner of Civil Service, may classify a position as primarily confidential, and that no such classification had been shown for the office of Director for Security. The Supreme Court affirmed the result.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the constitutional guarantee that no officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause applies to all civil service positions, including those declared policy-determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical. The exception in favor of these three classes relates only to the requirement of competitive examinations, not to security of tenure. Second, the statement that appointments to these special positions are terminable at the will of the appointing power is a mere obiter dictum and is not controlling. Third, an incumbent of a primarily confidential position continues only so long as confidence in him endures; termination on the ground of loss of confidence is not a removal but the expiration of the term of office. Fourth, only the President, upon recommendation of the Commissioner of Civil Service, may declare a position primarily confidential under Section 671 of the Revised Administrative Code; department heads and the Commissioner of Civil Service may only recommend or comment.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision appealed from, without pronouncement as to costs, holding that Villegas' removal was illegal and that he was entitled to the office of Director for Security and to back pay from January 1, 1958.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that even a primarily confidential position is protected by the constitutional guarantee that no civil service officer or employee shall be removed or suspended except for cause. Examiners like to use this case to test the distinction between the exception from competitive examinations and the security-of-tenure guarantee, and to test who has the power to declare a position primarily confidential.