Grino vs.

Civil Service Commission, 194 SCRA 458

GRINO VS. CSC
test of confidentiality

Sixto Demaisip was the provincial attorney of Iloilo. He resigned and recommended Arandela as his
replacement. This was approved by the governor.
Grino was elected as the new governor. When he took over, he terminated Arandela, and re-appointed
Demaisip as provincial attorney. Apparently, there was loss of trust and confidence. Also terminated were
other subordinates of the provincial attorney.
Arandela appealed the action taken by Governor Grino to the Merit Systems Protection Board of the CSC.
The MSPB declared the termination illegal, and ordered they Arandela be immediately restored to their
positions, with backwages. This was affirmed by the CSC.
Gov. Grino now filed a petition for review assailing the decision of the MSPB and CSC. He relied on the case of
Cadiente, which ruled that a city legal officer was a primarily confidential position. He argued that since a
provincial atty and a city legal officer has similar functions, then a provincial atty is also a primarily confidential
position, one requiring utmost confidence on the part of the mayor to be extended to said officer.
Arandela on the other hand contends that the CSC has already classified the position of Provincial Attorney as
a career position, and that the same is permanent, and can be removed only for a cause.


ISSUE: Is the position of Provincial Attorney primarily confidential? How about the other subordinates (such as
Legal Assistants)?

SC: PRIMARILY CONFIDENTIAL.
The positions of city legal officer and provincial attorney were created under RA5185, which categorized them
together as positions of trust. Both the provincial attorney and the city legal officer serve as a 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.

A comparison of these 2 positions under the LGC would reveal the close similarity of the 2 positions. Said functions
clearly reflect the highly confidential nature of the 2 offices and the need for a relationship based on trust between
the officer and the head of the LGU he serves.

The fact that the position of Arandela as provincial attorney has already been classified as under career service,
and certified as permanent by the CSC cannot conceal or alter its highly confidential nature. Since in the Cadiente
case the city legal officer was declared by this Court to be primarily confidential, the Court must also hold that the
position of provincial attorney is also primarily confidential. To rule otherwise would be tantamount to classifying 2
positions with the same nature and functions in to incompatible categories.

Arandelas termination valid. The tenure of an official holding a primarily confidential position ends upon loss of
confidence. He was not dismissed or removed from office, his term merely expired.

Note also that the atty-client relationship is strictly personal because it involves mutual trust and confidence. As
such, the personal character of the relationship prohibits delegation in favor of another attorney without the clients
consent. However, the legal work involved, as distinguished from the relationship, can be delegated. The practice
of delegating work of counsel to his subordinates is apparent since the Provincial Attorney is granted power to
exercise administrative supervision and control over acts and decisions of his subordinates.

It is therefore possible to distinguish the positions in the civil service were lawyers act as counsel in confidential /
and non-confidential positions simply by looking at the proximity of the position in relation to that of the appointing
authority.

With respect to the legal assistants and subordinates of the provincial attorney (who were also terminated along
with Arandela), they have been employed due to their technical qualifications. Their positions are highly technical
in character and not confidential. Thus they are PERMANENT EMPLOYEES and they belong to the category of
CLASSIFIED employees under the CSL. Thus, the positions are permanent and they enjoy security of tenure.

There is no need to extend the professional relationship to the legal staff and subordinates which assist the
confidential employer. Since the positions occupied by these subordinates are REMOTE from that of the appointing
authority, the element of trust between them is no longer predominant. The importance of these subordinates now
lies in the contribution of their legal skills to facilitate the work of the confidential employee.