CORPUS VS. CUADERNO

FACTS: Marinoz Corpus Special Assistant to the Governor of the Central Bank, was administratively charged with dishonesty, incompetence, neglect of duty and violation of the internal regulations of the office. He was suspended by the Monetary Board desoie the recommendation of the investigating committee that he reinstated and there was no basis for actions against Corpus. The Board considered him resigned as of the date of his suspension. Corpus moved for reconsideration but was denied. He filed the petition to CFI of Manila, which favored him and declared the Resolution of the Board as null and void. He was awardedP5,000 as attorney’s fees. Both Petitioner and respondent appealed the judgment. Petitioner was appealing the amount awarded to him contending that it was lower than what he has spent for attorney’s fees. While the respondent claimed that an officer holding highly technical position may be removed at any time for lack of confidence by the appointing power who was Governor Cuaderno.

ISSUE: Is the lack of confidence by the appointing power be a ground for removing an employee or a public officer?

HELD: The Constitution distinguishes the primarily confidential from the highly technical employees, and to the latter the loss of confidence as a ground for removal is not applicable. No public officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for a cause provided by law. Pertaining to the petitioner’s claim for damages, the agreement between a client and his lawyer as to attorney’s fees cannot bind the other party who was a stranger to the fee contract. While the Civil Code allows a party to recover reasonable counsel fees by way of damages, such fees must lie primarily in the discretion of the trial court. Decision appealed affirmed by the Supreme Court.