CORPUS VS.

CUADERNO
FACTS: Marinoz Corpus Special Assistant to the Governor of the Central
Bank, was administratively charged with dishonesty, incompetence,
neglect of duty and violation of the internal regulations of the office. He
was suspended by the Monetary Board desoie the recommendation of
the investigating committee that he reinstated and there was no basis
for actions against Corpus. The Board considered him resigned as
of the date of his suspension. Corpus moved for reconsideration but
was denied. He filed the petition to CFI of Manila, which favored him
and declared the Resolution of the Board as null and void. He
was awardedP5,000 as attorneys fees. Both Petitioner and respondent
appealed the judgment. Petitioner was appealing the amount awarded
to him contending that it was lower than what he has spent for
attorneys fees. While the respondent claimed that an officer holding
highly technical position may be removed at any time for lack of
confidence by the appointing power who was Governor Cuaderno.
ISSUE: Is the lack of confidence by the appointing power be a ground
for removing an employee or a public officer?
HELD: The Constitution distinguishes the primarily confidential from
the highly technical employees, and to the latter the loss of confidence
as a ground for removal is not applicable. No public officer or employee
in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for a cause
provided by law. Pertaining to the petitioners claim for damages, the
agreement between a client and his lawyer as to attorneys fees
cannot bind the other party who was a stranger to the fee contract.
While the Civil Code allows a party to recover reasonable counsel fees
by way of damages, such fees must lie primarily in the discretion of the
trial court. Decision appealed affirmed by the Supreme Court.