ADMIN | DIGESTS | 2F

Case No. 139: PAGCOR v. Rilloraza

G.R. No. 141141. June 25, 2001

TOPIC: Appointment in the Civil Service

Lagman

DOCTRINE: The position of casino operations manager is not a primarily confidential position.

FACTS:
● Respondent Carlos Rilloraza, casino operations manager who was recalled to the
branch for only 3 weeks, was administratively charged with dishonestly, grave
misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and loss of confidence
resulting to his dismissal.
● Petitioner PAGCOR alleged that Rilloraza was an employee occupying a confidential
position under Sec. 16 of PD 1869, and therefore, exempt from the provisions of the
Civil Service Law and shall be governed by the personnel management policies set by
the petitioner’s Board of Directors.
● Disclosed from the evidence presented was that Rilloraza allowed the exchange of
check after verification and confirmation from COM Carlos Gonzales, his immediate
superior, who told him that the check was good and even guaranteed by Branch
Manager (BM) Syhongpan and was not even objected to Senior Branch Manager (SBM)
Advincula and Branch Manager for Operations (BMO) Cordero who was informed of the
transaction by phone and that respondent tried to stop BM Syhongpan from playing the
game but the latter told him that he was playing for a customer, Ms. Corazon Castillo,
who was seated also at the table. Being a subordinate, respondent accorded respect
and credence on his word.
● However, Rilloraza maintained that he followed protocol and did not commit any
misconduct in the execution of his work. He contended that he followed procedures
when he was asked to exchange checks for gambling chips. He even asked his
immediate supervisor and another high-ranking official to verify and confirm said
transaction, to which they both agreed.
● As to the allegation that he failed to stop a top-ranking officer for gambling chips in
violation of PAGCOR’s rules and regulations, he maintained that he accorded respect
and credence to the word of the said officer since he was only his subordinate.
● Finding Rilloraza's explanation unsatisfactory, 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.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION RULING:

• The CSC modified the said resolution finding respondent guilty only of Simple Neglect
of Duty and metes out upon him the penalty of one month and one day suspension.

CA RULING:
• On appeal, the CA and ordered his reinstatement with payment of full backwages and
other monetary benefits.
ADMIN | DIGESTS | 2F

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Rilloraza was a confidential appointee whose term had expired by
reason of loss of confidence.

ARGUMENTS

PETITIONER (NAME): PHILIPPINE RESPONDENT (NAME): CARLOS P.

AMUSEMENT AND GAMING RILLORAZA
CORPORATION (PAGCOR)

Petitioner maintains that Rilloraza occupies a

primarily confidential position in line with Sec.
16 of P.D. No. 1869. Hence, he holds office at
the pleasure of the appointing power and may
be removed upon the cessation of confidence
in him by the latter. Such would not amount to
a removal but only the expiration of his term.

SC RULING:
• NO. Section 16, of P.D. 1869, insofar as it declares all positions within PAGCOR as
primarily confidential, is not absolutely binding on the courts. Thus, the position of
casino operations manager who does not exercise supervisory, recommendatory
and disciplinary powers is not primarily confidential.
• Sec. 16 of P.D. 1869 provides: Exemption. — All positions in the Corporation, whether
technical, administrative, professional or managerial are exempt from the provisions of
the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations, and shall be governed only by the personnel
management policies set by the Board of Directors. All employees of the casinos and
related services shall be classified as "Confidential" appointee.
• Citing their decision in CSC v. Salas, the Court held that the last portion of Sec. 16 of
PD 1869, which provides that “employees of the casino and related services shall be
classified as ‘confidential’ appointees.” Three important points must be considered with
regard to this. First, the classification of a particular position as primarily confidential,
policy-determining, or highly technical amount 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 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. Lastly, insofar as Sec.
16 of PD 1869 declares all positions within PAGCOR as primarily confidential, such is
not absolutely binding on the courts.
• In this case, respondent's duties and responsibilities call for a great measure of both
ability and dependability. They can hardly be characterized as routinary, 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. In this sense, he is a tier above the ordinary rank-and-file in that
his appointment to the position entails faith and confidence in his competence to perform
his assigned tasks. Lacking, therefore, is that amplitude of confidence reposed in
him by the appointing power so as to qualify his position as primarily confidential.
ADMIN | DIGESTS | 2F

ADDITIONAL NOTES (DOCTRINES)

● The wellspring of stability in government service is the constitutional guarantee of
entrance according to merit and fitness and security of tenure, viz : ". . . (2) Appointments
in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be determined,
as far as practicable, and, except to positions which are policy-determining,
primarily confidential, or highly technical, by competitive examination. (3) No officer
or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause
provided by law."
● Every appointment implies confidence, but much more than ordinary confidence is
reposed in the occupant of a position that is primarily confidential. The latter phrase
denotes not only confidence in the aptitude of the appointee for the duties of the office
but primarily close intimacy which insures freedom of intercourse without
embarrassment or freedom from misgivings of betrayals of personal trust or confidential
matters of state.