ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. 00-2-04-CA. July 18, 2000]

LUISITO S. DOMANTAY vs. ASSO. JUSTICE BARCELONA

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 18 2000.

A.M. No. 00-2-04-CA (Luisito S. Domantay vs. Associate Justice Ramon A. Barcelona, Court of Appeals.)

Complainant Luisito S. Domantay, who was employed as a driver of respondent, Court of Appeals Associate Justice Ramon A. Barcelona, since 1996, filed an affidavit-complaint dated February 7, 2000 against respondent, alleging that he was made to work from 6:00 a.m. to midnight, including Saturdays and Sundays, and on holidays without special pay. He further complained that respondent terminated his services on January 1, 2000 without due process, and that respondent refused to talk to him to discuss the ground for his termination.

Respondent filed his Comment on May 10, 2000, wherein he averred that the services of complainant was terminated due to inefficiency and constant absences especially on occasions where his services were needed most; that complainant had been given an Unsatisfactory rating because of his utter lack of initiative, dedication and industry; that he was often absent without prior notice and never bothered to call that he would not report for work; that complainant was so irresponsible and a chronic absentee not to mention that his driving left much to be desired; and that respondent, notwithstanding his compassion toward complainant's family, was constrained to terminate complainant from the service effective January 1, 2000 to save himself from being drained with stress and suppressed anger. ¹ Comment, pp. 2-3.

The appointment extended to complainant is co-terminous with respondent. The pleasure and prerogative of appointing a Chauffeur I-CT under his office exclusively belongs to him. The determination as to whom trust and confidence shall be reposed is exclusively vested upon him as the appointing authority and the person on the spot. And given the prevailing facts of the case, such trust and confidence has obviously been lost by the malfeasance of complainant despite repeated exhortations by respondent to reform in the performance of his duties, as underscored by respondent's lament that-

.hovering above the parties respective submissions in this case is the primordial necessity of laying down the basic reason why complainant was hired as a driver. The answer is simple. This person was hired to relieve the undersigned of the tension, stress and aggravation of driving to and from his place of work including places where he has to be officially present as member of the Court of Appeals. This person is obviously not the complainant, Domantay. No amount of excuse can eve change the irrefutable fact he was miserably unfit for the position as Chauffeur. ² Comment, p. 4 .

Otherwise stated, appointment is essentially a discretionary act performed by an officer in whom it is vested according to his best judgment, the only condition being that the appointee should possess all the qualifications required by law. ³ Rimonte v. Civil Service Commission, 244 SCRA 498 [1995]; Tomali v. Civil Service Commission, supra . Suffice it to state that respondent's discretion in this regard is sacrosanct and cannot be delved into by this Court. Indeed -

.It is said to be settled rule that those holding primarily confidential positions "continue for so long as confidence in them endures. Their termination can be justified on the ground of loss of confidence because in that case their cessation from office involves not removal but the expiration of their term of office." ⁴ Hernandez v. Villegas, 14 SCRA 544 [1965]; Gri�o v. Civil Service Commission, 194 SRA 458 [1991]; emphasis and italics supplied .Notwithstanding the refined distinction between removal from office and expiration of the term of a public officer, the net result is loss of tenure upon loss of confidence on the part of the appointing power. ⁵ Tria v. Sto. Tomas, 199 SCRA 833 [1991] .

ACCORDINGLY, the complainant is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court�

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE