Legally Yours,  Political Law

PAGCOR v. Rilloraza

PAGCOR v. Rilloraza

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


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 an 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 backwages.


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


No. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Section 16 of Presidential Decree No. 1869 expressly provides that all employees of the casinos and related services shall be classified as “Confidential” appointee 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. The submission that PAGCOR employees have been declared confidential appointees must be rejected. Section 16 of P.D. 1869, insofar as it declares all positions within PAGCOR as primarily confidential, is not absolutely binding on the courts, the true test being the nature of the position.

Although respondent’s position handles confidential matters such fact does not warrant the conclusion that his position is primarily confidential in character. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: