G.R. No. 85670 ; July 31, 1991
Rogelio A. Tria vs. Chairman Patricia A. Sto. Tomas, Civil Service Commission, Ret. Brig. Gen. Jose T. Almonte, Ret. Col. Ernesto P. Ravina and Ret. Gen. Miguel M. Villamor

FACTS

Petitioner Rogelio A. Tria was a Management and Audit Analyst I at the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB), a position described as “confidential.” In October 1986, he submitted a confidential report directly to the Office of the President detailing alleged irregularities by his regional director, bypassing the EIIB chain of command. Subsequently, Tria applied for a 100-day vacation leave to seek interim employment abroad, which was approved by his immediate supervisor and the regional personnel officer. While he was in Manila processing his travel, the EIIB Central Office issued a memorandum requiring him to explain his bypassing of official channels. A second memorandum followed, disapproving his leave and ordering him to report for duty. Tria had already departed the country and was unable to comply. Consequently, he was dropped from the rolls for absence without official leave (AWOL) and terminated for loss of confidence.
Upon his return, Tria sought reinstatement, arguing his leave was properly approved and his report to Malacañang was done in good faith. His requests were denied. He elevated the case to the Civil Service Commission, which upheld his dismissal. Tria then filed this petition for review.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether petitioner, a confidential employee, could be validly dismissed for loss of confidence without a formal investigation.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner and ordered his reinstatement. The legal logic is anchored on the distinction between a primarily confidential position and one that is merely invested with confidentiality. The Court held that Tria’s position, while described as “confidential” in his appointment, was not a “primarily confidential” position under the law. A primarily confidential position presupposes a close intimacy between the appointee and the appointing power, ensuring freedom of discussion and delegation without fear of betrayal. The nature of Tria’s duties as a Management and Audit Analyst I did not establish such a relationship; the confidentiality was incidental to his investigative functions, not the essence of his position.
Since Tria was not a primarily confidential employee, he was entitled to the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure and could only be removed for cause as provided by law and after due process. The ground of “loss of confidence” is applicable only to primarily confidential employees. For non-confidential or merely confidential employees, loss of confidence is not a valid ground for dismissal. His termination, based on this inapplicable ground and without the requisite formal investigation and hearing, was illegal. The Court found his absence was not abandonment, as he had an approved leave application, and his report to higher authorities, while a possible breach of protocol, did not constitute a dismissible offense warranting summary removal without due process.