Pinero vs Hechanova GR No.

L-22562 1966
Petitioners: Pinero et. al.
Respondents: Hechanova, Acting Sec of Finance
Facts: State appealed the decision of the CFI of Manila ordering that the respondents to
reinstate the petitioners to their respective positions in the Customs Patrol Service with
payment of their back salaries and ousting those who replaced them.
The 32 petitioners were employees of the Port Patrol division in the Bureau of Customs.
On various dates between first week of December 1962 to the last week of January
1963, the petitioners were ordered dismissed or separated from the Bureau based on
the ground that the respondent had lost confidence in them.
After dismissal, the petitioners individually and collectively demanded for their immediate
reinstatement. Since their demands were unheeded, the petitioners went to Court.
CFI said that under Consti (Art XII, Sec 4) and Civil Service Law (RA 2260) the
petitioners cant be dismissed or removed from positions without cause or due hearing,
even if the positions are primarily confidential (as contended by the Customs and
Finance authorities) since the Civil Service Law protects not just those who belong to the
classified service but also to the unclassified service.
W/N claimants may be dismissed without cause or hearing for lack of confidence, since
the positions they occupy are primarily confidential as declared by EO 397 (1941) and
EO 94 (1947)
No.
SC said that what the EO says doesnt matter, since at the time under the Civil Service
Act of 1959 (RA 2260) Section 5, what ultimately determines whether an administrative
position is primarily confidential, policy determining or highly technical is the nature of
the functions attached to the position.

Legislative history of RA 2260 in the Senate:

Sec 5 was originally worded as composed of positions expressly declared by law
Sen. Tanada said that it should not be within the power of Congress to declare what
positions are primarily confidential or policy determining
It should be the appointing power that first determines the nature of the position, and in
case of conflict the Court
SO - it is the nature of the position that determines whether a position is primarily
confidential, policy determining or highly technical. Executive pronouncements are initial
determinations that are not conclusive in case of conflict.
Why is it important to determine if the position is primarily confidential? If its primarily
confidential, then there is no security of tenure.
No data as to the functions of the members of Port Patrol, but this doesnt immediately
mean that the position is primarily confidential. However, it also seems improbable that

the service demands such close trust and intimate relations between the appointing
official and the entire customs patrol force, in that every member holds primarily
confidential posts.
SC concludes that the positions held by the appellees were not confidential in nature
which would make their terms of office co-terminal with the confidence given in them.
This means that the appellees were not subject to dismissal or removal except for cause
specified by law and with due process.
W/N the removal of petitioners is discretionary upon the Secretary of Finance, as
provided in EO 397 (1941) which supplements EO 94 (1947) Sec 53.
No. Number one, EO 94 were specifically enacted for the administrative services of the
independent Republic and EO 397 were enacted for services under the Commonwealth.
Number two, they were repealed by Sec 45 of Civil Service Law. Number three, even if
they were in force, the discretionary removal of the appellees were not authorized by EO
94.
W/N the appellees possess civil service eligibility appropriate for the positions they were
holding.
SC cant rule on this issue since it was first invoked in the SC on appeal and thats not
allowed - should have invoked this question in the lower court. Besides, the appellees
who were issued permanent appointments (there were 3) have the presumption of
regularity to them. Even with those who held only provisional or probationary
appointments could not have their appointments invalidated unless it is shown that there
were eligible appointees (other than the ineligible ones) during the time of their
appointment. The matter of eligibility should be threshed out in an appropriate
proceeding.
RULING: Appealed decision is affirmed.