26. Jaime Hernandez vs.

Epifanio Villegas
G.R. No. L-17287, June 30, 1965
FACTS: Respondent Villegas is a lawyer and civil service eligible and was
appointed as Director of Security of the Bureau of Customs on Nov. 1, 1955.
A year after his appointment, he was sent to the United States to study. He
returned to the Philippines after one year of study. Upon his return, he was
TEMPORARILY assigned as Arrastre Superintendent and at the same time, he
still received his salary as Director of Security of the Bureau of Customs.
John Keefe was designated as Director of Security of the Bureau of Customs
on an ACTING capacity. On January 1958, Secretary of Finance herein
petitioner proposed that both Villegas and Keefe be appointed to the current
position they hold from TEMPORARY to PERMANENT APPOINTMENT.
Respondent did not know about such chances in appointment and so on
March 1958; he informed the Bureau of Customs Commissioner that he was
resuming his duties and functions of his office as Director of Security of the
Bureau. As well, he wrote to other concerned officials asking them to
disapprove the promotional appointment of Keefe. He then filed a case for
quo warranto in the CIF of Manila which granted Villegas the right to collect
back-pay as Director of Security and CA affirms the decision. Thus this case
is filed.
ISSUES: (1) Whether the Office of the Director of Security of the Bureau of
Customs IS A PRIMARY CONFIDENTIAL POSITION and
(2)Whether the Director of Security CAN BE TRANSFERRED TO
ANOTHER POSITION without cause
RULING
The Court of Appeals relied mainly on Section 671 of the Revised
Administrative Code the following officers and employees constitute the
unclassified service:
(1)Positions which may be declared by the President of the Philippines,
upon recommendation of the Commissioner of Civil Service, as policydetermining, primarily confidential, or highly technical.

The only authority who, by constitutional and, legal provisions, is competent

to classify a position into primary confidential is the President. The heads of
departments and the Commissioner of Civil Service can only recommend or
make comments.

For the Court, they do not need to consider the position involved in this case
is primarily confidential, because, even assuming the position to be, it is
nevertheless SUBJECT to the Constitutional provision that "No officer or
employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for
cause." (Phil. Const., Art. XII, sec. 4)

It is to be understood of course that officials and employees holding primarily

confidential positions continue only for so long as confidence in them
endures. The termination of their official relation can be justified on the
ground of loss of confidence because in that case their cessation from office
involves no removal but merely the expiration of the term of office two
different causes for the termination of official relations recognized in the Law
of Public Officers. But the point is that as long as confidence in them endures
and it has been shown that it has been lost in this case the incumbent
is entitled to continue in office.

HELD:
The Court therefore hold that Villegas' removal from the office of
Director for Security is without cause and is therefore illegal. The decision
appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.