Scribd
Upload
366 views2 pages

Corpus Vs Cuaderno

1) Marino Corpus was appointed to various positions within the Central Bank of the Philippines from 1949 to 1955, receiving promotions. However, in 1954 and 1957 he was suspended based on administrative complaints filed against him. 2) Corpus argued that his suspensions were unwarranted and brought about by malicious machinations of the Bank Governor. The Bank counterclaimed that Corpus had filed his case maliciously and committed libel. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that Corpus' position as an economist was highly technical in nature and therefore he enjoyed security of tenure that could not be removed at the pleasure of his superiors through loss of confidence alone. His removal was illegal.

Uploaded by

Gia Dimayuga
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
366 views2 pages

Corpus Vs Cuaderno

1) Marino Corpus was appointed to various positions within the Central Bank of the Philippines from 1949 to 1955, receiving promotions. However, in 1954 and 1957 he was suspended based on administrative complaints filed against him. 2) Corpus argued that his suspensions were unwarranted and brought about by malicious machinations of the Bank Governor. The Bank counterclaimed that Corpus had filed his case maliciously and committed libel. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that Corpus' position as an economist was highly technical in nature and therefore he enjoyed security of tenure that could not be removed at the pleasure of his superiors through loss of confidence alone. His removal was illegal.

Uploaded by

Gia Dimayuga
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

8.

Corpus vs Cuaderno (1962)

Petitioner: Marino Corpus

Respondents: Miguel Cuaderno, the Central Bank of the Philippines, and the Monetary Board

FACTS:

 Defendant was the Governor of the Central Bank of the Philippines. In 1949, petitioner was
appointed Economist in the Department of Economic Research of the said bank, where he
received promotions in position and salary. By 1954, petitioner became Director of the
Department of Loans and Credit and Rural Banks Administration. In the same year, some
employees of the bank filed an administrative complaint against him. After investigation, he was
found guilty on five counts and upon recommendation of defendant as Governor, he was
penalized with suspension without pay from February 5, 1955 to August 30, 1955, the date the
Monetary Board of the bank rendered its decision.
 On August 31, 1955, Corpus received a letter from respondent informing him that he had been
reinstated in the service of the bank with the designation of “Technical Assistant to the
Governor.” 6 months later, he was appointed Special Assistant to the Governor in charge of the
Export Department.
 Two years later, several of petitioner’s co-employees filed an administrative complaint against
him and the Monetary Board upon recommendation of respondent suspended him.
 On March 15, 1938, Corpus instituted the present action alleging that his suspension was
unwarranted and had been brought about by respondent’s malicious machinations. The latter,
meanwhile, instituted a counterclaim stating that the action was filed maliciously and that
plaintiff had committed libel against him.
 While the case was pending in the lower court, a 3-man committee created to investigate the
administrative changes reported to the Monetary Board that it found no bases to recommend
disciplinary actionist petitioner. However, the Monetary Board recommended not to continue
his service in the Central Bank because the respondent has already lost trust in him, and it will
be against the best interest of the bank to let him continue to service when his position is of a
highly confidential and technical nature. The Monetary Board and the Central Bank argue that
officers holding highly technical positions may be removed at any time for lack of confidence by
the appointing power, and that such power of removal is implicit in Section 1 Article XII of the
Constitution: “..Appointments in the Civil Service, except as to those which are policy-
determining, primarily confidential or highly technical in nature, shall be made only according to
merit and fitness, to be determined as far as practicable by competitive examination.”

ISSUE:

 W/N petitioner was illegally removed from office

HELD:

 Yes, petitioner was illegally removed from office. The tenure of officials holding primarily
confidential positions (such as private sectaries of public functionaries) ends upon loss of
confidence, because their term of office lasts only as long as confidence in them endures; and
thus their cessation involves no removal. But the situation is different for those holding highly
technical posts, requiring special skills and qualifications. The Constitution clearly distinguished
the primarily confidential from the highly technical, and to apply the loss of confidence rule to
the latter incumbents is to ignore and erase the differentiation expressly made by our
fundamental charter. Moreover, it is illogical that while an ordinary technician, say a clerk,
stenographer, mechanic, or engineer, enjoys security of tenure and may not be removed at
pleasure, a highly technical officer, such as an economist or a scientist of avowed attainments
and reputation, should be denied security and be removable at any time, without right to a
hearing or chance to defend himself. No technical men worthy of the name would be willing to
accept work under such conditions. Ultimately, the rule advocated by the Bank would demand
that highly technical positions be filled by persons who must labor always with an eye cocked at
the humor to their superiors. It would signify that the so-called highly technical positions will
have to be filled by incompetents and yes-men, who must rely not on their own qualifications
and skill but on their ability to curry favor with the powerful. The entire objective of the
Constitution in establishing and dignifying the Civil Service on the basis of merit would be thus
negated. In this case, despite the allegation of the Central Bank and Monetary Board,
petitioner’s position is highly technical and therefore, loss of confidence alone is not ground for
his dismissal.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy