NESCITO HILARIO v.

CSC and CHARITO PLANAS

March 31, 1995 | Romero, J. |
Digester: Aspi, Maria Margarita

SUMMARY: Petitioner Hilario was appointed as City Attorney of QC by then OIC Mayor Simon, Jr. Newly elected mayor, Mathay, Jr.
took over from Mayor Simon, Jr. and issued a letter to Petitioner stating that “pursuant to Sec. 481, Art. II of the LGC of 1991
providing that the position of City Legal Officer is co­terminous with the appointing authority, you are considered resigned.”
Respondent Planas filed a complaint with the CSC against Petitioner and a certain Pecson praying that they be found administratively
liable for usurpation, grave misconduct, being notoriously undesirable, gross insubordination, and conduct grossly prejudicial to the
best interest of the service. CSC issued Resolution No. 93-4067 stating that Petitioner should not be allowed to continue holding the
position of City Attorney of QC. Petitioner averred that that his position as city legal officer is not considered confidential and the CSC
has no authority to remove or terminate his services. SC denied the petition and ruled that the position of city legal officer is
confidential. Also, when the CSC determined that Petitioner was no longer entitled to hold the position of City Legal Officer, it was
acting within its authority under the Administrative Code to hear and decide complaints filed before it.
DOCTRINE: The position of City Legal Officer is a confidential one. By virtue of RA No. 5185, both the provincial attorney and city
legal officer serve as the legal adviser and legal officer for the civil cases of the province and the city that they work for. Their
services are precisely categorized by law to be ‘trusted services.’ xxx 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.

FACTS:
 Petitioner seeks to declare CSC Resolution No. 94-3336 dated June 23, 1994 and Resolution No. 93-4067 dated September 21,
1993 of the CSC null and void.
 Petitioner was appointed as City Attorney by the then OIC Mayor Brigido R. Simon, Jr., at that time the OIC of the Office of the
Mayor of QC under the Freedom Constitution of 1986.
 The newly elected mayor, Ismael Mathay, Jr. took over from Mayor Simon. Mayor Mathay issued a letter to petitioner, which
states: “In the absence of a tender of resignation on your part from your present position as City Attorney (City Legal Officer),
please be informed that pursuant to Sec. 481, Art. II of the LGC of 1991 providing that the position of City Legal Officer is
co-terminous with the appointing authority, you are considered resigned as of June 30, 1992.”
 Respondent Vice Mayor Charito L. Planas of QC filed a complaint with the CSC against petitioner and a certain Jose L. Pecson
praying that they be found administratively liable for usurpation, grave misconduct, being notoriously undesirable, gross
insubordination, and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
 The CSC issued Resolution No. 93-4067: xxx Atty. Hilario should not be allowed to continue holding the position of the Legal
Officer (City Attorney) of QC.
 Petitioner filed an MR which was denied by the CSC in its Resolution No. 94-3336: xxx the Commission hereby resolves to deny
the motion for reconsideration of Atty. Nescito Hilario. xxx The Commission hereby orders the Cashier of the QC government to
stop payment of salaries to Atty. Hilario xxx.

RULING: Petition DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Whether Petitioner’s position as city legal officer is confidential – YES.

Petitioner
 When he was appointed City Attorney, the applicable law governing his appointment was BP Blg. 337 and, therefore, his position
should not be considered confidential.
 Although the said position was considered confidential under RA No. 5185, BP Blg. 337 impliedly repealed the confidential nature
of the position when it expanded the duties of City Attorney.
Court
 Sec. 19, RA No. 5185: Sec. 19. Creation of positions of Provincial Attorney and City Legal Officer.—To enable the provincial and
city governments to avail themselves of the full time and trusted services of legal officers, the positions of provincial attorney
and city legal officer may be created and such officials shall be appointed in such manner as is provided for under Section four of
this Act. For this purpose, the functions hitherto performed by the provincial and city fiscals in serving as legal adviser and legal
officer for civil cases of the province and city shall be transferred to the provincial attorney and city legal officer, respectively.
 BP Blg. 337, Section 188 enumerates the qualifications, powers and duties of the city legal officer:
Sec. 188. Appointment, Qualifications, Compensation, Powers and Duties.—
(1) The city legal officer shall be appointed by the city mayor, subject to civil service law, rules and regulation.
(2) No person shall be appointed city legal officer unless he is a citizen of the Philippines, of good moral character, a member of
the Philippine Bar, and has acquired experience in the practice of his profession for at least five years.
(3) The city legal officer shall receive such compensation, emoluments and allowances as may be determined by law or
ordinance.
(4) The city legal officer shall be the chief legal adviser of the city and all offices thereof, and as such shall:
a) Represent the city in all civil cases wherein the city or any officer thereof, in his official capacity, is a party;
 b) When required, draft ordinances, contracts, bonds, leases and other instruments involving any interest of the city, and
inspect and pass upon any such instruments already drawn;
c) Give his opinion in writing, when requested by the mayor or the sangguniang panlungsod, upon any question relating to
the city or the rights or duties of any city officer;
d) Investigate or cause to be investigated any city officer for neglect or misconduct in office, or any person, firm or
corporation holding any franchise or exercising any public privilege from the city for failure to comply with any condition,
or to pay any consideration mentioned in the grant of such franchise or privilege, and recommend appropriate action to
the sangguniang panlungsod and the city mayor;
e) Institute and prosecute in the city’s interest when directed by the mayor, a suit on any bond, lease, or other contract
upon any breach or violation thereof; and
f) Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties and functions as may be prescribed by law or ordinance.
 An examination of the provisions of BP Blg. 337 reveals no intention by the legislature to remove the confidential nature of the
position of city legal officer. What it does is to merely specify the various qualifications, powers and duties of a city legal officer
which were not enumerated under RA No. 5185.
 The position of City Legal Officer is a confidential one. In Griño v. CSC: the position of City Legal Officer has its counterpart in
the position of provincial attorney appointed by the provincial governor, both being positions involving the rendering of trusted
services. By virtue of RA No. 5185, both the provincial attorney and city legal officer serve as the legal adviser and legal officer
for the civil cases of the province and the city that they work for. Their services are precisely categorized by law to be ‘trusted
services.’ xxx 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.

Whether the CSC has authority to remove or terminate the services of Petitioner – YES.
Petitioner
 Questions the validity of CSC Resolution Nos. 93-4067 and 94-3336 for having been issued without authority.
 The CSC “usurped the power, functions, and prerogatives of Mayor Mathay to exclusively discipline and decide on matters
affecting the conduct and employment of QC employees and officials who are under his control and supervision.”
 CSC Resolution 94-3336 states that: “It appears that Atty. Hilario was issued an appointment effective August 18, 1986 by then
Mayor Simon. Hence, his term of office is deemed to have automatically expired when now QC Mayor Mathay was elected in
office and subsequently assumed his position.”
 The Mayor is the only one who may remove him from office directly and not the CSC, which only has appellate powers to review
the decision of the Mayor.
Court
 Nothing in the Administrative Code precludes the CSC from deciding a disciplinary case before it. Sec. 47 thereof states: Sec.
47. Disciplinary Jurisdiction.—(1) The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative disciplinary cases involving the
imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than thirty days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days’ salary, demotion in
rank or salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from office. A complaint may be filed directly with the Commission by a private
citizen against a government official or employee in which case it may hear and decide the case or it may deputize any
department or agency or official or group of officials to conduct the investigation. The results of the investigation shall be
submitted to the Commission with recommendation as to the penalty to be imposed or other action to be taken.
 Although respondent Planas is a public official, there is nothing under the law to prevent her from filing a complaint directly with
the CSC against petitioner.
 When the CSC determined that petitioner was no longer entitled to hold the position of City Legal Officer, it was acting within its
authority under the Administrative Code to hear and decide complaints filed before it.

Petitioner
 He is not covered by RA No. 7160, otherwise known as The LGC of 1991, which explicitly states that the term of the legal
officers shall be co-terminous with the office appointing authority.
 The co-terminous provision applies only to future appointments of the legal officer but does not apply to incumbents.
Court
 This provision is but a reiteration of the principle that since the position of City Legal Officer is a confidential one, it is perforce
deemed to be co-terminous with that of the appointing authority.

Petitioner
 Although Mayor Mathay in his letter dated July 24, 1992 considered him resigned as of June 30, 1992, the latter still continued
to give him legal assignments, a cogent indication that Mayor Mathay still reposes trust and confidence in him; thus, there is no
reason for him to vacate his office.
Court
 If Mayor Mathay really intended to retain the services of petitioner as City Legal Officer, he could easily have done so by issuing
a formal appointment to this effect.
 At no time during the proceedings before the CSC did Mayor Mathay ever indicate a desire to rescind his letter dated July 24,
1992. Nor did the Mayor raise any objection when the CSC ordered petitioner to vacate the position of City Legal Officer in QC.
 Mayor Mathay’s silence is eloquent proof that he does not intend petitioner to continue in the said position.
Padilla, J, Separate and Concurring Opinion
 His dissent in Griño v. CSC: the position of provincial attorney (and, by analogy, the city attorney) is not primarily confidential
but a career position, and, as such, the holder of the office owes his loyalty not to the appointing authority (the provincial
governor or city mayor) but to the provincial or city government for which he acts as counsel or attorney.
 The attorney-client relationship existed really between the local government unit concerned and the lawyer appointed to the
position of provincial or city attorney. It should be the local government unit concerned which should decide whether or not to
terminate said relationship and not the governor or mayor alone.
 Governors and mayors could go but the provincial attorney and city attorney would remain as a career officer, subject to
removal only for cause as provided by law and the civil service rules.
 It is unfortunate, however, that the LGC of 1991 (RA No. 7160) in Sec. 481 made the position of legal officer coterminous with
that of the appointing authority. This, in my opinion, certainly adds to the demoralization within the ranks of career government
employees since appointments to the position of legal officer can now be based on considerations other than performance,
efficiency, dedication and public service. The “spoils system” is now given free reign at least in the position of provincial attorney
and city attorney.