H4

<NAME>
Section JD 1B
Constitutional Law 1

PAGCOR v. Rilloraza June 25, 2001

FACTS:
On November 5, 1997, administrative charges were brought against respondent
Carlos P. Rilloraza, a casino operations manager of petitioner PHILIPPINE
AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR) for failure to prevent
irregularity and violations of casino and regulations committed by co-officers during his.
PAGCOR Board issued a Resolution dismissing respondent on the grounds of
dishonesty, grave misconduct and/or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service and loss of confidence. Thus, respondent appealed to the Civil Service
Commission which modified the said resolution finding respondent guilty only of Simple
Neglect of Duty. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the resolution of the CSC and
ordered reinstatement of respondent with payment of full back wages.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is a confidential appointee or employee whose
term had expired by reason of loss of confidence.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court has constantly held that whether or not a position is
policy-determining, primarily confidential or highly technical, it is determined not by the
title but by the nature of the task that is entrusted to it.
It is thus clearly deducible, if not altogether apparent, that the primary purpose of
the framers of the 1987 Constitution in providing for the declaration of a position as
policy-determining, primarily confidential or highly technical is to exempt these
categories from the competitive examination as a means for determining merit and
fitness. It must be stressed further that these positions are covered by security of
tenure, although they are considered non-competitive only in the sense that appointees
thereto do not have to undergo Competitive examinations for purposes of determining
merit and fitness.
Justice Regalado’s incisive discourse yields three (3) important points: First, the
classification of a particular position as primarily confidential, policy-determining or
highly technical amounts to no more than an executive or legislative declaration that is
not conclusive upon the courts, the true test being the nature of the position. Second,
whether primarily confidential, policy-determining or highly technical, the exemption
provided in the Charter pertains to the exemption from competitive examination to
determine merit and fitness to enter the civil service. Such employees are still protected
by the mantle of security of tenure. Last, and more to the point, PAGCOR as primarily
confidential is not absolutely binding on the courts.
Undoubtedly, respondent’s duties and responsibilities call for a great measure of
both ability and dependability. They can hardly be characterized as routinely, for he is
required to exercise supervisory, recommendatory and disciplinary powers with a wide
latitude of authority. His duties differ markedly from those we previously ruled as not
primarily confidential.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.