Cristobal v Melchor

Facts:
Cristobal was formerly employed as a private secretary in the
President's Private Office. He is a third grade civil service eligible. On
Jan 1962, then Executive Secretary Mutuc informed him that his
services were terminated effective that day. Similar letters were
addressed to some other employees in said Office. The dismissed
employees appealed to the President for a reconsideration of their
separation from the service. But Sec. Mutuc denied their request.
Thus, five of the other employees filed a civil action before the CFI.
This case was entitled " Ingles v Mutuc". The said reached the SC
w/c declared that the 5 employees removal as illegal, ordering their
reinstatement. But it is worth mentioning that when the said civil
case was still pending in the CFI, the other 5 dismissed employees
who filed said action were recalled to their positions in the Office of
the President, without prejudice to the continuation of their civil
action. With respect to the other employees who were not
reinstated, efforts were exerted by Sec Mutuc to look for placements
outside of Malacaang so that they may be re-employed. Cristobal
was one of those who had not been fortunate enough to be
reappointed to any positions as befits his qualifications. He waited
for Sec Mutuc to make good his assurance that he would be recalled
to the service, until Sec. Mutuc was replaced by other executive
secretaries who likewise assured him of assistance to be
reemployed at "the opportune time." So after the SC decided the
case of Ingles v Mutuc, Cristobal addressed the Office of the
President, requesting reinstatement to his former position, in
accordance with the decision of the SC in the aforementioned case.
This request, however, was denied repeatedly. Hence, he filed a
complaint in the CFI. Answering the complaint, the defendants
represented by the Office of the SolGen alleged that Cristobal had
no cause of action as he is deemed to have abandoned his office for
failure to institute the proper proceedings to assert his right within
one year from the date of separation pursuant to Sec. 16, Rule 66 of
the Rules of Court, he having come to court only after the lapse of
more than nine years, thereby in effect acquiescing to his
separation. The CFI dismissed his complaint thus this appeal to the
SC.
Issue
1. WON his dismissal was illegal?
2. WON he was barred by laches for having failed to file his
complaint within the one-year period provided for in Sec 16, Rule 66
of the Rules of Court?

Held & Rationale

1. Yes. In the case of Ingles, it was clarified that positions primarily
confidential in nature are subject to the removal at the pleasure of
the appointing power. Thus, the incumbent of a primarily
confidential position holds office at the pleasure only of the
appointing power and when such pleasure turns into displeasure,
the incumbent is not "removed" or "dismissed" but his term merely
"expires.
In this casem Cristobal, is a civil service eligible with eight (8) years
of service in the government. He was Private Secretary with annual
compensation of P4,188.00. No evidence was adduced by the
government to show that Cristobal's position was "primarily
confidential". As stated in the case of Ingles, "officers or employees
in the unclassified" as well as "those in the classified service" are
protected by the provision in the organic law that "no officer or
employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except
for cause as provided by law" (Section 4, Article XII, 1935
Constitution). In this case, there was no cause for his removal.
2. Yes. The circumstances surrounding this particular case shows
that: (a) Jose Cristobal consistently pressed for a reconsideration of
his separation from the service; (b) he was give n assurance that
would be recalled at the opportune time; and (c) that he sudden
termination of his employment without cause after eight years of
service in the government is contrary to law following the ruling
Ingles vs, Mutuc which inures to the benefit of Cristobal who is
similarly situated as the plaintiffs in said case and who merely
desisted from joining the suit because of the assurance given him
that he would be recalled to the service - with all these factors, We
repeat, there is justification for not applying existing jurisprudence
to his case.
This Court, applying the principle of equity, need not be bound to a
rigid application of the law, but rather its action should conform to
the conditions or exigencies to a given problem or situation in order
to grant a relief that will serve the ends of justice.