GR 123708; (June, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 123708, June 19, 1997.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. RAFAEL M. SALAS, respondent.
FACTS
On October 7, 1989, respondent Rafael M. Salas was appointed by the PAGCOR Chairman as a member of the Internal Security Staff (ISS) and assigned to a casino. His employment was terminated by the PAGCOR Board of Directors on December 3, 1991, allegedly for loss of confidence following a covert investigation. The investigation claimed he was engaged in proxy betting, based on affidavits from two customers and unfavorable polygraph test results. Salas appealed for a reinvestigation, claiming he was not given an opportunity to be heard, but his appeal was denied. He then appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which denied his appeal on the ground that, as a confidential employee, he was not dismissed but his term had expired. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) affirmed this decision in Resolution No. 92-1283. The Court of Appeals reversed the CSC, ruling that Salas was not a confidential employee and was illegally dismissed, ordering his reinstatement with full back wages. Petitioners CSC and PAGCOR filed the present petition.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent Rafael M. Salas is a confidential employee.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that respondent Salas is not a confidential employee. While Section 16 of Presidential Decree No. 1869 declared all employees of casinos and related services as “confidential” appointees, such an executive pronouncement is merely an initial determination and is not conclusive. The nature of the position, not the statutory declaration, determines whether it is primarily confidential. Applying the “proximity rule” and examining the actual functions of an ISS member, the Court found that Salas’s duties (such as frisking customers, checking belongings, and guarding casino entrances) were routine, ministerial, and involved no close intimacy with or knowledge of the PAGCOR Board’s policies or secret information. Therefore, he could not be dismissed on the ground of loss of confidence as a confidential employee, and his termination was illegal.