JASPER

2010-78165

ALLEN
01 JUCO

VS.

B.

Juco filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court

assailing the decision of the NLRC.

NLRC

FACTS:
Benjamin C. Juco (Juco) was hired as a project engineer by the
National Housing Corporation (NHC) from 16 November 1970 until
14 May 1975, when he was separated from the service for having
been implicated in a crime of theft and/or malversation of public
funds.
On 25 March 1977, Juco filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
against the NHC with the Department of Labor.
On 17 September 1977, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Juco's
complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
Juco elevated the case to the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), which reversed the ruling of the Labor
Arbiter in a decision dated 28 December 1982.
The NHC appealed before the Supreme Court which rendered a
decision dated 17 January 1985 setting aside the decision of the
NLRC and reinstating the ruling of the Labor Arbiter.
On 6 January 1989, Juco filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with
the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
On 11 April 1989, the CSC dismissed Juco's complaint on the
ground that the NHC is a government corporation without an
original charter, but created under the Corporation Code, and
consequently, beyond its jurisdiction, pursuant to Article IX,
Section 2 (1)1 of the 1987 Constitution.
On 28 April 1989, Juco filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with
the NLRC.
On 21 May 1990, the Labor Arbiter found Juco to have been
ilegally dismissed, considering that the criminal charge against
him was purely a fabrication.
On 1 June 1990, the NHC appealed before the NLRC, which issued
a decision on 14 March 1991 reversing the decision of Labor
Arbiter for lack of jurisdiction.

The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and

agencies of the Government, including government owned and controlled
corporations with original charters.

ELECTORAL
PAGE 1 OF 11

PROCESS

AND

BARRIENTOS

PUBLIC

ISSUE: Whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of

discretion in holding that Juco is not governed by the Labor Code.
HELD: NO.
RATIO:
The ruling in National Housing Corporation vs. Juco that
employees of government-owned or controlled corporations, with
or without an original charter, are governed by the Civil Service
Law has been supplanted by Article IX-B, Section 2 (1) 2 of the
1987 Constitution.
In NASECO vs. NLRC, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations
which have been organized under the Corporation Law are
excluded from the purview of the CSC.
The NHC was incorporated under Act No. 1459, the former
corporation law, and consequently, its employees are subject to
the provisions of the Labor Code.

02 EIIB

VS.

COURT

OF

APPEALS

FACTS:
On 13 October 1988, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) wrote
the Secretary of Finance requiring the latter to submit to the CSC
all appointments in the Economic Intelligence and Investigation
Bureau (EIIB).
On 29 March 1989, the Commissioner of the EIIB, Jose T. Almonte
(Almonte) wrote back to the CSC, requesting for confirmation of
the EIIB's exemption from CSC rules and regulations with respect
to appointments and other personnel actions, pursuant to
2

The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and

agencies of the Government, including government owned or controlled corporations
with original charter.

OFFICE

DIGESTS:

BATCH

JASPER
2010-78165

ALLEN

B.

Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1458 and Letter of Instruction (LOI)

No. 71.
On 21 June 1989, the CSC issued Resolution No. 89-400, denying
Almonte's request and reiterating its 13 October 1988 order.
Having received no compliance from the EIIB, the CSC issued an
order dated 7 December 1990, directing Almonte to immediately
implement Resolution No. 89-400, or be held liable for indirect
contempt.
On 4 June 1991, the CSC issued another order, requiring Almonte
to show cause why he should not be cited for indirect contempt
for his refusal to comply with Resolution No. 89-400 and the 7
December 1990 order.
On 13 June 1991, Almonte wrote the CSC invoking PD No. 1458
and LOI No. 71 exempting the EIIB from the coverage of civil
service rules and regulations on appointments and other
personnel actions, and praying that Resolution No. 89-400, the
Order of 4 June 1991, and the subsequent orders be set aside.
On 22 August 1991, the CSC issued an order, finding Almonte
guilty of indirect contempt imposed upon him a of fine of Php
1,000.00 per day, computed from his receipt of the order until he
complies with Resolution No. 89-400, and directed the Cashier of
the EIIB to deduct the same from the salary of Almonte.
Almonte filed a petition for certiorari with Court of Appeals, which
dismissed the same on the ground that the EIIB is covered by the
civil service, pursuant to Article IX-B, Section 2 (1) of the 1987
Constitution.
Its motion for reconsideration being denied on 18 March 1997,
the EIIB filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme
Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the EIIB is covered by the civil service.

HELD: Yes.
RATIO:
Section 2 (1), Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution provides that
all government agencies, without exception, are covered by the
civil service.
ELECTORAL
PAGE 2 OF 11

PROCESS

AND

PUBLIC

BARRIENTOS

EIIB is a government agency under the Department of Finance, as

provided by Section 17, Chapter 4, Title II, Book IV of the 1987
Administrative Code and thus, within the ambit of the Civil
Service Law.
PD No. 1458 and LOI No. 71 provide for the exemption of EIIB only
from Civil Service Rules and Regulations relative to appointments
and other personnel actions, but not from the Civil Service Law or
Civil Service Rules and Regulations relative to any other matter.
Membership of the EIIB in the intelligence community is of no
moment, insofar as application of the Civil Service Law is
concerned as the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), which
performs functions similar to that of the EIIB, submits the
appointments of all its personnel to the CSC.
In Almonte vs. Vasquez, the Supreme Court ruled that the
privilege of confidentiality may not be invoked, except when there
is a showing that military or diplomatic secrets will be disclosed.

03 CHUA

VS.

CSC

FACTS:
On 2 December 1988, Republic Act (RA) No. 6683 was enacted
providing for benefits for early retirement and voluntary
separation from the government service, as well as for
involuntary separation due to reorganization.
Section 2 of the RA No. 6683 enumerates those qualified to
receive the benefits as (1) all appointive officials and employees
of the National Government, including government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charters, (2) personnel of all
local government units, and (3) all regular, temporary, casual and
emergency employees, regardless of age, who have rendered at
least a total of two (2) consecutive years of government service
as of the date of separation.
On 30 January 1989, Lydia Chua (Chua) filed an application with
the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), which denied the

OFFICE

DIGESTS:

BATCH

JASPER
2010-78165

ALLEN

B.

same, offering her, instead, separation benefits equivalent to

one-half (1/2) month basic pay for every year of service from
1980.
Chua elevated the case to the Civil Service Commission (CSC),
which dismissed the same.
Chua filed a motion for reconsideration, asserting her eligibility,
for having rendered more than two (2) consecutive years of
government service.
The CSC emphasized denied Chua's motion for reconsideration on
the ground there is an additional requirement of being on a
casual, emergency, temporary or regular employment status as
of 2 December 1988, when R.A. No. 6683 took effect, and Chua's
employment at that time was contractual.
Chua filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not Chua is entitled to the benefits provided

under RA No. 6683.
HELD: Yes.
RATIO:
The definition of regular employment found in Article 280 of the
Labor Code as that where the employee has been engaged to
perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the employer has no equivalent in
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 807 or in the Revised Administrative
Code of 1987.
The appointment status of government employees in the career
service is classified may be classified as (1) permanent, or one
issued to a person who has met the requirements of the position
to which appointment is made, in accordance with the provisions
of the Civil Service Act and the Rules and Standards promulgated
in pursuance thereof; or (2) temporary, or one issued to a person
who meets all the requirements for the position to which he is
being appointed except the appropriate civil service eligibility, in
the absence of appropriate eligibles and it becomes necessary in
the public interest to fill a vacancy, provided that such
appointment shall not exceed twelve (12) months, and the
ELECTORAL
PAGE 3 OF 11

PROCESS

AND

PUBLIC

BARRIENTOS

appointee may be replaced sooner if a qualified civil service

eligible becomes available.
The Administrative Code of 1987 characterizes the Career Service
as (1) Open Career positions for appointment to which prior
qualification in an appropriate examination is required; (2) Closed
Career positions which are scientific, or highly technical in nature,
which include the faculty and academic staff of state colleges and
universities, and scientific and technical positions in scientific or
research institutions which shall establish and maintain their own
merit systems; (3) Positions in the Career Executive Service,
namely, Undersecretary, Assistant Secretary, Bureau Director,
Assistant Bureau Director, Regional Director, Assistant Regional
Director, Chief of Department Service and other officers of
equivalent rank as may be identified by the Career Executive
Service Board, all of whom are appointed by the President; (4)
Career officers other than those in the Career Executive Service,
who are appointed by the President, such as the Foreign Service
Officers in the Department of Foreign Affairs; (5) Commission
officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces which shall
maintain a separate merit system; (6) Personnel of governmentowned
or
controlled
corporations,
whether
performing
governmental or proprietary functions, who do not fall under the
non-career service; and (7) Permanent laborers, whether skilled,
semi-skilled, or unskilled.
The Non-Career Service is characterized by (1) entrance on bases
other than those of the usual tests of merit and fitness utilized for
the career service; and (2) tenure which is limited to a period
specified by law, or which is coterminous with that of the
appointing authority or subject to his pleasure, or which is limited
to the duration of a particular project for which purpose
employment was made.
Included in the non-career service are (1) elective officials and
their personal or confidential staff; (2) secretaries and other
officials of Cabinet rank who hold their positions at the pleasure
of the President and their personal confidential staff(s); (3)
Chairman and Members of Commissions and boards with fixed
terms of office and their personal or confidential staff; (4)
contractual personnel or those whose employment in the
OFFICE

DIGESTS:

BATCH

JASPER
2010-78165

ALLEN

B.

government is in accordance with a special contract to undertake

a specific work or job requiring special or technical skills not
available in the employing agency, to be accomplished within a
specific period, which in no case shall exceed one year and
performs or accomplishes the specific work or job, under his own
responsibility with a minimum of direction and supervision from
the hiring agency; and (5) emergency and seasonal personnel.
Another type of non-career employee recognized in the cases of
Caro vs. Rilloroza and Manuel vs. P.P. Gocheco Lumber Co. is
casual where and when employment is not permanent but
occasional, unpredictable, sporadic and brief in nature.
Chua's service record reveals that she occupied various positions
with the NIA from 1974 to 1988.
RA No. 6683 seeks to cover and benefits regular, temporary,
casual and emergency employees who have rendered at least a
total of two (2) consecutive years government service.
Resolution No. 87-104 of the CSC provides that services rendered
on a contractual, emergency, or casual status, irrespective of the
mode or manner of payment therefor, are creditable for
retirement purposes subject to certain conditions.
No substantial differences exist between casual, emergency,
seasonal, project, co-terminous or contractual personnel as all are
tenurial employees with no fixed term, non-career, and
temporary.
Both the CSC and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
characterized Chua's employment as co-terminous, which in turn,
was contractual in nature.
CSC Memorandum Circular No. 11, series of 1991 characterizes
the status of a co-terminous employee as that issued to a person
whose entrance in the service is characterized by confidentiality
by the appointing authority or that which is subject to his
pleasure or co-existent with his tenure, and which may be
classified as (1) co-terminous with the project, as when the
appointment is co-existent with the duration of a particular
project for which purpose employment was made or subject to
the availability of funds for the same; (2) co-terminous with the
appointing authority, as when appointment is co-existent with the
tenure of the appointing authority; (3) co-terminous with the

ELECTORAL
PAGE 4 OF 11

PROCESS

AND

PUBLIC

BARRIENTOS

incumbent, as when appointment is co-existent with the

appointee, in that after the resignation, separation or termination
of the services of the incumbent the position shall be deemed
automatically abolished; and (4) co-terminous with a specific
period, as when the appointment is for a specific period and upon
expiration thereof, the position is deemed abolished.
In the case of co-terminous with the incumbent and co-terminous
with a specific period, what is termed co-terminous is the
position, and not the appointee-employee.
A co-terminous employee is a non-career civil servant, like casual
and emergency employees and there is no solid reason why the
latter are extended benefits under the Early Retirement Law but
the former are not.
Adherence to the legal maxims of expressio unius est exclusio
alterius and casus omissus pro omisso habendus est can result in
incongruities and in a violation of the equal protection clause of
the Constitution.
In the case of Fegurin vs. NLRC, the Supreme Court held that
workers belonging to a work pool, hired and re-hired continuously
from one project to another were considered non-project-regular
and permanent employees.
Chua was hired and re-hired in four (4) successive projects during
a span of fifteen (15) years, and, although no proof of the
existence of a work pool can be assumed, her service record
cannot be disregarded.
Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution states that, "No
person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws."
RA No. 6683 would violate the equal protection clause were it be
sustained that the benefits of the said law are to be denied a
class of government employees who are similarly situated as
those covered by said law.
The OSG's argument that co-terminous or project employment is
inherently short-lived, temporary and transient, whereas,
retirement presupposes employment for a long period would
result in a violation of the equal protection clause because

OFFICE

DIGESTS:

BATCH

JASPER
2010-78165

ALLEN

B.

casuals are not even in the plantilla, and yet, are entitled to the
benefits of early retirement.

04 CUEVAS

VS.

BACAL

FACTS:
Josefina G. Bacal (Bacal) passed the Career Executive Service
(CES) Examinations in 1989 and was appointed Regional Director
of the Public Attorneys Office.
On 5 January 1995, she was appointed by President Fidel V.
Ramos to the rank of CESO III and she was designated by the
Secretary of Justice as Acting Chief Public Attorney, assuming
office on 20 February 1998.
On 1 July 1998 Carina J. Demaisip (Demaisip) was appointed
"Chief Public Defender" by President Joseph Estrada.
Bacal was appointed "Regional Director, Public Defenders Office"
by President Estrada.
On 17 July 1998, Bacal filed a petition for quo warranto
questioning her replacement as Chief Public Attorney with the
Supreme Court, which dismissed the same without prejudice to its
refiling with the Court of Appeals.
On 25 March 1999 the Court of Appeals rendered a decision in
favor of Bacal.
Her motion for reconsideration being denied, Demaisip filed a
petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not Bacal may be transferred to another position.
HELD: Yes.
RATIO:
Security of tenure in the career executive service is acquired with
respect to rank and not to position.

ELECTORAL
PAGE 5 OF 11

PROCESS

AND

PUBLIC

BARRIENTOS

The guarantee of security of tenure to members of the CES does

not extend to the particular positions to which they may be
appointed.
Bacal did not acquire security of tenure by the mere fact that she
was appointed to the higher position of Chief Public Attorney
since she was not subsequently appointed to the rank of CESO I
based on her performance in that position as required by the
rules of the CES Board.
Within the Career Executive Service, personnel can be shifted
from one office or position to another without violation of their
right to security of tenure because their status and salaries are
based on their ranks and not on their jobs.

05 PAGCOR

VS.

RILLORAZA

FACTS:
On 5 November 1997, Carlos P. Rilloraza (Rilloraza), a casino
operations manager of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming
Corporation (PAGCOR) was administratively charged with
dishonesty, grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service, and loss of confidence for facilitating
several checks from a financier without authorization.
Finding Rillorazas explanation unsatisfactory, the PAGCOR Board
issued a resolution on 2 December 1997 dismissing him and
several others from PAGCOR, on the grounds of dishonesty, grave
misconduct and/or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service and loss of confidence.
Rilloraza appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and
imposed upon him a penalty of one (1) month and one (1) day
suspension.
His motion for reconsideration being denied, Rilloraza appealed to
the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the resolution of the CSC.
Its motion for reconsideration being denied, the CSC filed a
petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.

OFFICE

DIGESTS:

BATCH

JASPER
2010-78165

ALLEN

B.

BARRIENTOS

ISSUE: Whether or not Rilloraza was a confidential employee whose

term had expired by reason of loss of confidence.

07 AQUINO

HELD: No.
RATIO:
Pursuant to the ruling in Commissioner vs. Salas, Section 16 of
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1869, insofar as it exempts PAGCOR
positions from the provisions of Civil Service Law and Rules, has
been amended, modified or deemed repealed by the Revised
Administrative Code.
In the case of Piero vs. Hechanova the Supreme Court held that
it is the nature of the position which determines whether a
position is primarily confidential, policy-determining or highly
technical.
It is the appointing power that determines the nature of the
position, and in case of conflict, it is the court which shall
determine whether the position is primarily confidential or not.
The doctrine enunciated in Piero vs. Hechanova remains valid,
even though in the 1987 Constitution and the Administrative
Code of 1987, Book V the phrase "in nature" has been deleted.
Even though Rillorazas duties and responsibilities call for a great
measure of both ability and dependability and can hardly be
characterized as routinary, for he is required to exercise
supervisory, recommendatory and disciplinary powers with a wide
latitude of authority, there is a lack of that amplitude of
confidence reposed in him by the appointing power so as to
qualify his position as primarily confidential.
There is no showing of that element of trust indicative of a
primarily confidential position because.

VS.

CSC

FACTS:
From 16 February to 16 June 1984, Victor A. Aquino (Aquino) was
designated as Property Inspector and In-Charge of the Supply
Office.
On 20 July 1984, Aquino, then Clerk II, Division of City Schools of
San Pablo City, was designated as Property Inspector and InCharge of the Supply Office.
Two (2) years thereafter, Leonarda D. de la Paz (de la Paz), then
Clerk II, Division of City Schools of San Pablo City was given a
promotional appointment as Supply Officer I in the Department of
Education, Culture, and Sports (DECS) Division of San Pablo City,
which the Civil Service Comission (CSC) approved as permanent.
On 20 October 1986 Aquino filed a protest with the DECS
Secretary questioning de la Paz's qualification and competence.
In a decision dated 4 May 1987, the DECS Secretary sustained
Aquino's protest and appointed him as permanent Supply Officer
I, which was approved by the CSC.
De la Paz filed appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board
(MSPB), which rendered a decision upholding the Aquino's
appointment.
De la Paz appealed to the CSC, which ruled in her favor.
Aquino filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied,
prompting him to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme
Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CSC may revoke Aquino's appointment
on the ground that de la Paz is better qualified.
HELD: No.

06 LUEGO

ELECTORAL
PAGE 6 OF 11

PROCESS

VS.

CSC (SUPRA)

AND

RATIO:

PUBLIC

OFFICE

DIGESTS:

BATCH

JASPER
2010-78165

ALLEN

B.

The discretion exercised by the appointing power, in extending an

appointment to a given position to one of two employees
possessing the requisite minimum qualifications for the position,
will not generally be interfered with, and must be sustained.
The CSC has no authority to revoke an appointment simply
because it believed that another person is better qualified than
the appointee for it would constitute an encroachment on the
discretion solely vested on the appointing authority.
The CSC has authority to revoke the appointment of the
successful protestant, when the right to security of tenure of the
prior appointee to the contested position had already attached.
The CSC did not direct the appointment of a substitute of its
choice, but merely restored the appointment of a prior appointee.
It is well-settled that once an appointment is issued and the
moment the appointee assumes a position in the civil service
under a completed appointment, he acquires a legal, not merely
equitable right to the position, which is protected not only by
statute, but also by the Constitution, and cannot be taken away
from him either by revocation of the appointment, or by removal,
except for cause, and with previous notice and hearing.

08 DE

LOS

SANTOS

VS.

MALLARE

FACTS:
Eduardo de los Santos (de los Santos) was appointed City
Engineer of Baguio, which appointment was confirmed by the
Commission on Appointments.
Gil R. Mallare (Mallare) was extended an ad interim appointment
to the same position.
De los Santos was asked to report to the Bureau of Public Works
for another assignment.
De los Santos refused to vacate his office, and instituted a quo
warranto with the Supreme Court.

ELECTORAL
PAGE 7 OF 11

PROCESS

AND

PUBLIC

BARRIENTOS

ISSUE: Whether or not de los Santos is entitled to remain in office.

HELD: Yes.
RATIO:
Section 2545 of the Revised Administrative Code which allows the
President to remove at pleasure any of the officers enumerated
therein, is directly incompatible with Article XII of the
Constitution, Section 4 which provides that, "No officer or
employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended
except for cause as provided by law."
The phrase "for cause" in connection with the removals of public
officers means for reasons which the law and sound public policy
recognized as sufficient warrant for removal, that is, legal cause,
and not merely causes which the appointing power in the exercise
of discretion may deem sufficient.
It is implied that officers may not be removed at the mere will of
those vested with the power of removal, or without any cause.
Moreover, the cause must relate to and affect the administration
of the office, and must be restricted to something of a substantial
nature directly affecting the rights and interests of the public.
The office of city engineer is neither primarily confidential, policydetermining, nor highly technical, which are positions that are
excluded from the merit system and dismissal at pleasure of
officers and employees appointed therein is allowed by the
Constitution.

09 TRIA

VS.

STO. TOMAS

FACTS:
Rogelio A. Tria (Tria) had been employed with the Economic
Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) of the Department of
Finance as a Management and Audit Analyst I, a position
expressly described in the letter of appointment as confidential.

OFFICE

DIGESTS:

BATCH

JASPER
2010-78165

ALLEN

B.

On 27 September 1984, Tria wrote a confidential report to the EIIB

Deputy Commissioner detailing the nonfeasance of a lawyer
assigned to Region 5 and recommended the said lawyer's
replacement "With a competent and able lawyer to handle the
cases brought to his attention."
On 14 October 1986, Tria submitted another confidential report,
addressed to the Deputy Executive Secretary, Office of the
President, this time concerning an EIIB Region 5 Director.
On 23 October 1986, Tria was issued a memorandum requiring
him to submit an explanation in writing why no disciplinary action
should be taken against him for filing a report directly with the
Office of the President.
Tria failed to receive and therefore, respond to the memorandum.
Tria was sent another memorandum reminding him of his duty to
submit a written explanation, and informing him that his
application for vacation has been disapproved and that he must
report for work ten (10) working days.
As Tria had already left the country, he was unable to comply with
the directives and was therefore considered to be on absence
without official leave (AWOL).
On 12 January 1987, Tria was issued another memorandum
terminating his services.
Upon his return to the country, Tria asked for reinstatement,
stating that his application for vacation leave had been approved
by his immediate chief and the personnel officer, which was
denied.
Tria filed a petition for review with the Civil Service Commission
(CSC) which the Commission, which denied the same.
Tria filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether or not Tria's removal was valid.
HELD: No.
RATIO:
The characterization of a position as "primarily confidential" has a
two-fold:
(1) such characterization renders inapplicable the
ELECTORAL
PAGE 8 OF 11

PROCESS

AND

PUBLIC

BARRIENTOS

ordinary requirement of filling up a position in the Civil Service on

the basis of merit and fitness as determined by competitive
examinations; and (2) while the 1987 Constitution does not
exempt such positions from the operation of the principle set out
in Article IX (B), Section 2 (3) of the same Constitution that "no
officer or employee of the Civil Service shall be removed or
suspended except for cause provided by law," the "cause
provided by law' includes "loss of confidence."
It is said to be a settled rule that those holding primarily
confidential positions continue for so long as confidence in them
endures and their termination can be justified on the ground of
loss of confidence because in that case their cessation from office
involves no removal but the expiration of their term of office.
Notwithstanding the refined distinction between removal from
office and expiration of the term of a public officer, the net result
is loss of tenure upon loss of confidence on the part of the
appointing power.
The actual duties and functions of Tria based on his job
description reveals their ordinary and day to day character.
In Piero v. Hechanova, the Supreme Court held that it is the
nature of the position which finally determines whether a position
is primarily confidential, policy determining or highly technical.

10 LAUREL

VS.

CSC

FACTS:
Jose P. Laurel (Jose), the governor of Batangas, Benjamin Laurel
(Benjamin), his brother, as Senior Executive Assistant in the his
office.
The position of Senior Executive Assistant is a non-career service
position which belongs to the personal and confidential staff of an
elective official.

OFFICE

DIGESTS:

BATCH

JASPER
2010-78165

ALLEN

B.

In view of the resignation of the incumbent Provincial

Administrator Jose Benjamin to the said position in an acting
capacity.
Jose also issued Benjamin a promotional appointment as Civil
Security Officer, a position which is classified by the Civil Service
Commission (CSC) as "primarily confidential".
Lorenzo Sangalang wrote the CSC informing itof the appointments
extended to Benjamin.
CSC revoked Benjamin's designation.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CSC was correct in revoking Banjamin's
designation.
HELD: No.
RATIO:
The position of Provincial Administrator is in the career service
which, per Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 807, is
characterized by (a) entrance based on merit and fitness to be
determined as far as practicable by competitive examinations, or
based on highly technical qualifications, (b) opportunity for
advancement to higher career positions, and (c) security of
tenure.
The position of Provincial Administrator is an open career position,
for appointment to it requires prior qualification in an appropriate
examination.
It is the nature of the position which finally determines whether a
position is primarily confidential, policy determining or highly
technical.
Not being primarily confidential, appointment to the position of
Provincial Administrator is subject to the rule on nepotism.

11 GRIO

VS.

CSC

FACTS:

ELECTORAL
PAGE 9 OF 11

PROCESS

AND

PUBLIC

BARRIENTOS

Sixto Demaisip (Demaisip) was the Provincial Attorney of Iloilo,

but subsequently resigned, recommending Teotimo Arandela
(Arandela) to take his place.
In the meantime, Cirilo Gelvezon was promoted from Legal Officer
II to Senior Legal Officer, while Teodolfo Dato-on and Nelson
Geduspan were appointed to the position of Legal Officer II.
When Simplicio Grio assumed governorship of Iloilo, he informed
Arandela and all the legal officers at the Provincial Attorney's
Office about his decision to terminate their services citing a news
article which "undermined that trust and confidence" that he had
on them.
Demaisip was reappointed as the Provincial Attorney and
arranged the replacements of the other legal officers.
Cirilo Gelvezon was replaced by Santos Aguadera, Nelson
Geduspan was replaced by Manuel Casumpang and Manuel
Travia took the place of Teodolfo Dato-on.
ISSUE: Whether or not the position of Provincial Attorney is primarily
confidential.
HELD: Yes.
RATIO:
In the case of Cadiente vs. Santos, the Supreme Court held that
the position of a City Legal Officer is one which is "primarily
confidential."
A city legal officer appointed by a city mayor to work for and in
behalf of the city has for its counterpart in the province a
provincial attorney appointed by the provincial governor, and in
the same vein, a municipality may have a municipal attorney who
is to be named by the appointing power.
The positions of city legal officer and provincial attorney were
created under Republic Act No. 5185 which categorized them
together as positions of "trust".
The fact that the position of provincial attorney is classified as
one under the career service and certified as permanent by the
Civil Service Commission (CSC) cannot conceal or alter its highly
confidential nature. To rule otherwise would be tantamount to
OFFICE

DIGESTS:

BATCH

JASPER
2010-78165

ALLEN

B.

classifying two positions with the same nature and functions in

two incompatible categories.
There is no need to extend the professional relationship to the
legal staff which assists the confidential employer above
described for the reason that subordinates are remote from that
of the appointing authority, and consequently, the element of
trust between them is no longer predominant.
Their position of legal officer is highly technical in character and
not confidential, and thus, permanent and belongs to the
category of classified employees under the Civil Service Law.

12 CSC

VS.

SALAS

FACTS:
On 7 October 1989, Rafael M. Salas (Salas) was appointed as
Internal Security Staff (ISS) of the Philippine Amusement and
Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) and assigned to the Manila
Pavilion Hotel.
On 3 December 1991, Salas was terminated by the Board of
Directors of PAGCOR for loss of confidence.
Salas appealed to the Chairman and the Board of Directors of
PAGCOR, but was denied.
Salas appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB),
which was also denied.
Salas further appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC),
which affirmed the MSPB.
On petition for certiorari, the Court of Appeals reversed the CSC.
The CSC appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD: No.
RATIO:

PROCESS

AND

Section 16 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1869, insofar as it

exempts PAGCOR positions from the provisions of Civil Service
Law and Rules has been amended, modified or deemed repealed
by the 1987 Constitution and the Revised Administrative Code,
except with regard to confidential employees.
In the case of Piero vs. Hechanova, the Supreme Court ruled
that it is the nature of the position which determines whether a
position is primarily confidential, policy-determining or highly
technical.
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 competitive examination as a means for
determining merit and fitness.
The term primarily confidential denotes not only confidence in the
aptitude of the appointee for the duties of the office but primarily
close intimacy which ensures freedom of intercourse without
embarrassment or freedom from misgivings of betrayals of
personal trust or confidential matters of state.
Salas does not enjoy such close intimacy with the appointing
authority of PAGCOR.
The nature of the functions of Salas, while may be said that
honesty and integrity are primary considerations in the
appointment, does not involve such close intimacy between him
and the appointing authority.

13 OBIASCA

VS.

BASALLOTE

FACTS:
On 26 May 2003, Jeane O. Basallote (Basallote) was appointed as
Administrative Officer II of the Tabaco National High School in
Albay.
The new City Schools Division Superintendent, Ma. Amy O.
Oyardo (Oyardo), advised School Principal Dr. Leticia B. Gonzales

ISSUE: Whether or not Salas is a confidential employee.

ELECTORAL
PAGE 10 OF 11

BARRIENTOS

PUBLIC

OFFICE

DIGESTS:

BATCH

JASPER
2010-78165

ALLEN

B.

(Gonzales) that the papers of the applicants for the position of

Administrative Officer II of the school were being returned and
that a school ranking should be accomplished and submitted to
her office for review.
Basallote received a letter from Ma. Teresa U. Diaz (Diaz), Human
Resource Management Officer I of the City Schools Division of
Tabaco City, Albay, informing her that her appointment could not
be forwarded to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) because of
her failure to submit the position description form (PDF) duly
signed by Gonzales.
Basallote tried to obtain Gozales signature but the latter refused
despite repeated requests.
Oyardo advised Basallote to return to her former teaching
position of Teacher I.
Oyardo appointed petitioner Arlin B. Obiasca (Obiasca) as
Administrative Officer II, which was attested by the CSC.
Basallote filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against Oyardo,
Gonzales and Diaz.
The Ombudsman found Oyardo and Gonzales administratively
liable for withholding information from Bassalote on the status of
her appointment, and suspended them from the service for three
months.
Bassalote likewise filed a protest with CSC, which sustained it.
Obiasca filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals,
which denied the same.
Her a motion for reconsideration but his motion being denied,
Obiasca filed a petition with the Supreme Court.

BARRIENTOS

The lack of CSC approval was not due to any negligence on

Bassalotes part, nor was it due to the "tolerance, acquiescence
or mistake of the proper officials."
The underhanded machinations of Gonzales and Oyardo, as well
as the gullibility of Diaz, were the major reasons why Basallotes
appointment was not even forwarded to the CSC.
Obiasca's subsequent appointment was void as there can be no
appointment to a non-vacant position, the incumbent must first
be legally removed, or her appointment validly terminated, before
another can be appointed to succeed her.
The appointment of Obiasca was inconsistent with the law and
well-established jurisprudence, not only disregarding the doctrine
of immutability of final judgments, but also unduly concentrating
on a narrow portion of the provision of law, overlooking the
greater part of the provision and other related rules and using a
legal doctrine rigidly and out of context.

ISSUE: Whether or not the deliberate failure of the appointing

authority to submit respondents appointment paper to the CSC
within 30 days from its issuance made her appointment ineffective
and incomplete.
HELD: No.
RATIO:

ELECTORAL
PAGE 11 OF 11

PROCESS

AND

PUBLIC

OFFICE

DIGESTS:

BATCH