PAGCOR vs Anggara

Respondents Beatriz T. La Victoria (La Victoria) and Marita A. Angara

(Angara) were Sot Mac!ine Roving To"en Attendants (SMRTAs) o# petitioner
P!iippine A$%se$ent and Ga$ing Corporation (PAGCOR) assigned at its
casino in &avao Cit'.
T!e PAGCOR Board o# &irectors dis$issed t!e$ #ro$ service( e)ective
*%ne +,( -../( #or oss o# tr%st and con0dence.
1t appears t!at respondent La Victoria was dis$issed #or aeged s!ort
seing o# to"ens w!ie respondent Angara was dis$issed #or aeged to"en
passing and condoning or active' assisting La Victoria in covering %p !er
s!ortage.
Respondents 0ed t!eir appea $e$orand%$ wit! t!e Civi Service
Co$$ission (CSC). CSC directed PAGCOR C!air$an Aicia L. Re'es to s%2$it
!er co$$ent. 1nstead o# 0ing a co$$ent( petitioner 0ed a $otion to dis$iss(
on t!e gro%nd t!at t!e appea was 0ed o%t o# ti$e.
CSC iss%ed Reso%tion( reversed t!e respondents dis$issa and ordered
t!eir reinstate$ent.
1ss%e3
-.) 456 (CSC) 7RR7& 16 &7CLAR16G PR1VAT7 R7SPO6&76TS &1SM1SSAL is
41T8O9T CA9S7 A6& 41T8O9T &97 PROC7SS 7V76 41T8O9T A4A1T16G T87
COMM76T O: T87 P7T1T1O67R A6& T87 COMPL7T7 R7COR&S O: T87 CAS7(
487R7 T87 M7R1T O: T87 CAS7 S8O9L& 8AV7 B776 :A1RL; A6& 1MPART1ALL;
ASS7SS7&
+.) 456 LA V1CTOR1A A6& A6GARA 8OL& CO6:1&76T1AL POS1T1O6S 48OS7
R7MOVAL :ROM T87 S7RV1C7 CA6 B7 *9ST1:17& T8RO9G8 LOSS O:
TR9ST A6& CO6:1&76C7.
8ed3
-. 6o. T!e CSC did not err in r%ing t!at respondents were not dis$issed #or
ca%se and a#ter d%e process since loss of trust and confdence is not
one among the grounds for disciplinary action and t!ere was no
#or$a investigation cond%cted 2%t a s%$$ar' proceeding.
+. 6o.
It is the nature of the position which determines whether a
position is primarily confdential, policy-determining or highly
technical.
:ro$ t!e nat%re o# respondents #%nctions( t!eir organizationa ran"ing(
and t!eir co$pensation eve( occ%p'ing one o# t!e owest ran"s in petitioner(
cannot 2e considered con0dentia e$po'ees.
Petitioner, therefore, cannot justify respondents dismissal on
loss of trust and confdence since the latter are not confdential
employees.
Moreover, the petitioner cannot claim it was deprived of due
process of law when the CSC granted respondents appeal without the
comment of the petitioner or the records before it. Petitioner was
directed to 0e its co$$ent 2%t c!ose instead to $ove #or t!e dis$issa o# t!e
appea.
It must be remembered that the CSC, being an administrative
body with uasi-judicial powers, is not bound by the technical rules of
procedure and evidence in the adjudication of cases, subject only to
limitations imposed by basic reuirements of due process