Employees Designated as Confidential Still Have Rights

G.R. No. 123708, June 19, 1997

Imagine an employee dismissed simply because their boss lost trust, without any concrete wrongdoing. This happens more often than you think, especially in positions labeled as “confidential.” But are these employees truly without protection? This case explores the boundaries of confidential employment in the Philippines, clarifying that even these roles are not exempt from basic labor rights.

This case, Civil Service Commission and Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation vs. Rafael M. Salas, revolves around the termination of an Internal Security Staff (ISS) member at PAGCOR. While PAGCOR claimed Salas was a confidential employee whose term simply expired, the Supreme Court ultimately sided with the employee, emphasizing that the nature of the work, not just the label, determines the level of protection.

Defining Confidential Employees and Security of Tenure

The concept of a “confidential employee” in Philippine law stems from the idea that certain positions require a high degree of trust and discretion. However, this designation doesn’t automatically strip away an employee’s right to security of tenure, a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Section 2(3), Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution states: “No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law.” This provision ensures that government employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, cannot be arbitrarily dismissed.

The Administrative Code of 1987, particularly Section 12(9) of Book V, empowers the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to “Declare positions in the Civil Service as may be primarily confidential, highly technical or policy-determining.” However, this power is not absolute. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the actual nature of the job, not just the title, dictates whether a position is truly confidential.

In the landmark case of Piñero, et al. vs. Hechanova, et al., the Supreme Court clarified that executive pronouncements classifying positions are merely initial determinations and are not conclusive. The Court emphasized that it is the nature of the position that ultimately determines its classification, ensuring that employees are not deprived of their constitutional rights through arbitrary labeling.

The Salas Case: Facts and Court’s Reasoning

Rafael Salas worked as an Internal Security Staff (ISS) member at the Manila Pavilion Hotel casino, operated by PAGCOR. He was terminated due to alleged loss of confidence, stemming from a covert investigation that suggested his involvement in proxy betting. Salas appealed, arguing he wasn’t given a chance to defend himself. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) initially sided with PAGCOR, deeming Salas a confidential employee whose term had simply expired.

The Court of Appeals reversed the CSC’s decision, finding that Salas was not a confidential employee and therefore could not be dismissed based solely on loss of confidence. PAGCOR then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Here’s a breakdown of the case’s procedural journey:

• Salas was terminated by PAGCOR’s Board of Directors on December 3, 1991.
• He appealed to the PAGCOR Chairman and Board, which was denied.
• He then appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which also denied his appeal.
• The Civil Service Commission (CSC) affirmed the MSPB’s decision.
• The Court of Appeals reversed the CSC’s ruling, ordering Salas’ reinstatement.
• PAGCOR and the CSC appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision, emphasizing the “proximity rule” established in De los Santos vs. Mallare, et al., which states that a confidential employee must have a “close intimacy” with the appointing power, ensuring free communication without fear of betrayal.

The Court reasoned:

“The latter phrase 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.”

The Court noted that Salas’s duties were routine and did not involve the level of trust and intimacy required for a confidential position. The court also noted that despite being appointed by the Chairman, ISS members do not report directly to them, further diminishing the confidential nature of the role.

“Taking into consideration the nature of his functions, his organizational ranking and his compensation level, it is obviously beyond debate that private respondent cannot be considered a confidential employee.”

Practical Implications for Employers and Employees

This case reinforces that simply labeling a position as “confidential” does not give employers free rein to terminate employees at will. The actual duties and responsibilities must genuinely require a high degree of trust and close proximity to the appointing authority.

Employers should carefully review the job descriptions of positions classified as confidential to ensure they accurately reflect the level of trust and discretion involved. They should also be prepared to demonstrate a legitimate reason for termination beyond mere loss of confidence, especially if the employee challenges their dismissal.

Employees holding positions deemed confidential should be aware of their rights and seek legal counsel if they believe they have been unjustly terminated. They should gather evidence demonstrating the actual nature of their work and the lack of close intimacy with the appointing authority.

Key Lessons:

• Nature of Work Matters: The true nature of the job, not the title, determines if a position is confidential.
• Proximity Rule: Confidential employees must have a close, intimate relationship with the appointing power.
• Security of Tenure: Even confidential employees have a right to security of tenure and cannot be dismissed without just cause.
• Burden of Proof: Employers must justify terminations, even for confidential employees.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is a confidential employee?

A: A confidential employee is someone whose position requires a high degree of trust and close intimacy with the appointing authority, allowing for free communication without fear of betrayal.

Q: Can a confidential employee be dismissed at any time?

A: No. While confidential employees may be dismissed for loss of confidence, this must be based on a legitimate reason and not be arbitrary. They still have a right to security of tenure.

Q: How does the court determine if a position is truly confidential?

A: The court looks at the actual duties and responsibilities of the position, the organizational structure, and the level of interaction between the employee and the appointing authority.

Q: What should I do if I believe I was wrongly dismissed from a confidential position?

A: Seek legal counsel immediately. Gather evidence of your job duties and the lack of close intimacy with the appointing authority.

Q: Does this ruling apply to private sector employees?

A: While this case specifically addresses civil service employees, the principles regarding security of tenure and the need for just cause in termination apply to private sector employees as well.

ASG Law specializes in labor law and employment disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.