Corpus v.

Cuaderno March 31, 1965

Facts:

While petitioner-appellant was holding the position of Special Assistant to the Governor
of the Central Bank of the Philippines a position declared by the President of the
Philippines as "highly technical in nature and placed in the exempt class" (Appendix "D",
Exhibit W) he was, on or about March 7, 1958, charged in an administrative case, for
alleged dishonesty, incompetence, neglect of duty and/or abuse of authority,
oppression, misconduct, etc., preferred against him by employees of the Bank, resulting
in his suspension by the Monetary Board of the Bank and the creation of a 3-man
committee to investigate him. The committee was composed of representatives of the
Bank, Bureau of Civil Service and the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila. The
investigating committee found no basis for the allegations against Corpus and
recommended his immediate reinstatement. Nevertheless, the Central Bank Governor,
with the concurrence of the Monetary Board, ordered the dismissal of Corpus on the
ground, among others, of lack of confidence. Thus, petitioner filed an action for
certiorari, mandamus and quo warranto, and damages with preliminary injunction before
the Court of First Instance. However, the Central Bank and its Monetary Board
contended that lack of confidence of the one making the appointment constitutes
sufficient and legitimate cause of removal for government officers occupying policy
determining, primarily confidential and highly technical positions and that such power is
implicit in the 1935 Constitution, Art XII, Sec 4.

Issue:
Whether or Not the termination of Corpus is illegal

Ruling:
Yes. 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. But the situation is different for those “highly technical” posts
requiring special skills and qualifications, such as the office occupied by Corpus. The
Constitution clearly distinguishes the primarily confidential from the highly technical, and
to apply the loss of confidence rule to the latter incumbents is to ignore and erase the
differentiation expressly made by our fundamental charter. It is illogical that while an
ordinary technician, say a clerk, stenographer, mechanic, or engineer, enjoys security of
tenure and may not be removed at pleasure, a highly technical officer, such as an
economist or a scientist of avowed attainments and reputation, should be denied
security and be removable at any time, without right to a hearing or chance to defend
himself. Moreover, Article XII of the 1935 Constitution, Sec. 4 states that “No officer or
employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause as
provided by law. That provision recognizes no exception.