8/2/2017 CSCvsSalas:123708:June19,1997:J.

Regalado:EnBanc

ENBANC

[G.R.No.123708.June19,1997]

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING

CORPORATION,petitioners,vs.RAFAELM.SALAS,respondent.

DECISION
REGALADO,J.:

ThepresentpetitionforreviewoncertiorariseekstonullifythedecisionoftheCourtofAppeals,
datedSeptember14,1995,inCAG.R.SPNo.38319whichsetasideResolutionNo.921283ofthe
Civil Service Commission (CSC) and ordered the reinstatement of herein private respondent Rafael
M.SalaswithfullbackwagesforhavingbeenillegallydismissedbythePhilippineAmusementand
GamingCorporation(PAGCOR),butwithoutprejudicetothefilingofadministrativechargesagainst
himifwarranted.[1]
TherecordsdisclosethatonOctober7,1989,respondentSalaswasappointedbythePAGCOR
ChairmanasInternalSecurityStaff(ISS)memberandassignedtothecasinoattheManilaPavilion
Hotel.However,hisemploymentwasterminatedbytheBoardofDirectorsofPAGCORonDecember
3, 1991, allegedly for loss of confidence, after a covert investigation conducted by the Intelligence
DivisionofPAGCOR.Thesummaryofintelligenceinformationclaimedthatrespondentwasallegedly
engaged in proxy betting as detailed in the affidavits purportedly executed by two customers of
PAGCORwhoclaimedthattheywereusedasgunnersondifferentoccasionsbyrespondent.Thetwo
polygraphteststakenbythelatteralsoyieldedcorroborativeandunfavorableresults.
OnDecember23,1991,respondentSalassubmittedaletterofappealtotheChairmanandthe
Board of Directors of PAGCOR, requesting reinvestigation of the case since he was not given an
opportunitytobeheard,butthesamewasdenied.OnFebruary17,1992,heappealedtotheMerit
Systems Protection Board (MSPB) which denied the appeal on the ground that, as a confidential
employee,respondentwasnotdismissedfromtheservicebuthistermofofficemerelyexpired. On
appeal,theCSCissuedResolutionNo.921283whichaffirmedthedecisionoftheMSPB.[2]
RespondentSalasinitiallywenttothisCourtonapetitionforcertiorariassailingtheproprietyof
the questioned CSC resolution. However, in a resolution dated August 15, 1995,[3] the case was
referred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to Revised Administrative Circular No. 195 which took
effectonJune1,1995.
On September 14, 1995, the court of Appeals rendered its questioned decision with the finding
thathereinrespondentSalasisnotaconfidentialemployee,hencehemaynotbedismissedonthe
groundoflossofconfidence.Insoruling,theappellatecourtappliedthe"proximityrule"enunciatedin
the case of Grio, et al. vs. Civil Service Commission, et al.[4]. It likewise held that Section 16 of
PresidentialDecreeNo.1869hasbeensupersededandrepealedbySection2(1),ArticleIXBofthe
1987Constitution.
Hence this appeal, which is premised on and calls for the resolution of the sole determinative
issueofwhetherornotrespondentSalasisaconfidentialemployee.
PetitionersaverthatrespondentSalas,asamemberoftheInternalSecurityStaffofPAGCOR,is
aconfidentialemployeeforseveralreasons,viz.:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/123708.htm 1/8
8/2/2017 CSCvsSalas:123708:June19,1997:J.Regalado:EnBanc

(1)PresidentialDecreeNo.1869whichcreatedthePhilippineAmusementandGamingCorporationexpressly
providesunderSection16thereofthatallemployeesofthecasinosandrelatedservicesshallbeclassifiedas
confidentialappointees

(2)InthecaseofthePhilippineAmusementandGamingCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals,etal.,[5]The
SupremeCourthasclassifiedPAGCORemployeesasconfidentialappointees

(3)CSCResolutionNo.91830,datedJuly11,1991,hasdeclaredemployeesincasinosandrelatedservicesas
confidentialappointeesbyoperationoflawand

(4)BasedonhisfunctionsasamemberoftheISS,privaterespondentoccupiesaconfidentialposition.

Whence, according to petitioners, respondent Salas was not dismissed from the service but,
instead, his term of office had expired.They additionally contend that the Court ofAppeals erred in
applying the "proximity rule" because even if Salas occupied one of the lowest rungs in the
organizationalladderofPAGCOR,heperformedthefunctionsofoneofthemostsensitivepositionsin
thecorporation.
On the other hand, respondent Salas argues that it is the actual nature of an employee's
functions, and not his designation or title, which determines whether or not a position is primarily
confidential,andthatwhilePresidentialDecreeNo.1869mayhavedeclaredallPAGCORemployees
to be confidential appointees, such executive pronouncement may be considered as a mere initial
determinationoftheclassificationofpositionswhichisnotconclusiveincaseofconflict,inlightofthe
rulingenunciatedinTriavs.Sto.Tomas,etal.[6]
Wefindnomeritinthepetitionandconsequentlyholdthatthesameshouldbe,asitishereby,
denied.
Section2,RuleXXoftheRevisedCivilServiceRules,promulgatedpursuanttotheprovisionsof
Section 16(e) of Republic Act No. 2260 (Civil Service Act of 1959), which was then in force when
Presidential Decree No. 1869 creating the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation was
passed, provided that "upon recommendation of the Commissioner, the President may declare a
position as policydetermining, primarily confidential, or highly technical in nature." It appears that
Section16ofPresidentialDecreeNo.1869waspredicatedthereon,withthetextthereofprovidingas
follows:

"Allpositionsinthecorporation,whethertechnical,administrative,professionalormanagerialareexemptfrom
theprovisionsoftheCivilServiceLaw,rulesandregulations,andshallbegovernedonlybythepersonnel
managementpoliciessetbytheBoardofDirectors.Allemployeesofthecasinosandrelatedservicesshallbe
classifiedas'confidential'appointees."

On the strength of this statutory declaration, petitioner PAGCOR terminated the services of
respondentSalasforlackofconfidenceafteritsupposedlyfoundthatthelatterwasengagedinproxy
betting. In upholding the dismissal of respondent Salas, the CSC ruled that he is considered a
confidentialemployeebyoperationoflaw,hencethereisnoactofdismissaltospeakofbutamere
expirationofaconfidentialemployee'stermofoffice,suchthatacomplaintforillegaldismissalwillnot
prosperinthiscaseforlackoflegalbasis.
InreversingthedecisionoftheCSC,theCourtofAppealsopinedthattheprovisionsofSection
16ofPresidentialDecreeNo.1869maynolongerbeappliedinthecaseatbarbecausethesameis
deemedtohavebeenrepealedinitsentiretybySection2(1),ArticleIXBofthe1987Constitution.[7]
Thisisnotcompletelycorrect.Onthispoint,weapprovethemorelogicalinterpretationadvancedby
theCSCtotheeffectthat"Section16ofPD1869insofarasitexemptsPAGCORpositionsfromthe
provisionsofCivilServiceLawandRuleshasbeenamended,modifiedordeemedrepealedbythe
1987ConstitutionandExecutiveOrderNo.292(AdministrativeCodeof1987)."

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/123708.htm 2/8
8/2/2017 CSCvsSalas:123708:June19,1997:J.Regalado:EnBanc

However,thesamecannotbesaidwithrespecttothelastportionofSection16whichprovides
that"allemployeesofthecasinoandrelatedservicesshallbeclassifiedas'confidentialappointees.'"
WhilesuchexecutivedeclarationemanatedmerelyfromtheprovisionsofSection2,RuleXXofthe
implementing rules of the Civil Service Act of 1959, the power to declare a position as policy
determining, primarily confidential or highly technical as defined therein has subsequently been
codifiedandincorporatedinSection12(9),BookVofExecutiveOrderNo.292ortheAdministrative
Code of 1987.[8] This later enactment only serves to bolster the validity of the categorization made
under Section 16 of Presidential Decree No. 1869. Be that as it may, such classification is not
absoluteandallencompassing.
Prior to the passage of the aforestated Civil Service Act of 1959, there were two recognized
instanceswhenapositionmaybeconsideredprimarilyconfidential:Firstly,whenthePresident,upon
recommendation of the Commissioner of Civil Service, has declared the position to be primarily
confidentialand,secondlyintheabsenceofsuchdeclaration,whenbythenatureofthefunctionsof
the office there exists "close intimacy" between the appointee and appointing power which insures
freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings of betrayals of personal
trustorconfidentialmattersofstate.[9]
At first glance, it would seem that the instant case falls under the first category by virtue of the
expressmandateunderSection16ofPresidentialDecreeNo.1869.Anindepthanalysis,however,
ofthesecondcategoryevincesotherwise.
WhenRepublicActNo.2260wasenactedonJune19,1959,Section5thereofprovidedthat"the
noncompetitiveorunclassifiedserviceshallbecomposedofpositionsexpresslydeclaredbylawto
be in the noncompetitive or unclassified service or those which are policydetermining, primarily
confidential, or highly technical in nature." In the case of Piero, et al. vs. Hechanova, et al.,[10] the
Courtobligedwithashortdiscoursethereonhowthephrase"innature"cametofinditswayintothe
law,thus:

"Thechangefromtheoriginalwordingofthebill(expresslydeclaredbylawxxxtobepolicydetermining,
etc.)tothatfinallyapprovedandenacted('orwhicharepolicydetermining,etc.innature')cameaboutbecause
oftheobservationsofSenatorTaada,thatasoriginallywordedtheproposedbillgaveCongresspowertodeclare
byfiatoflawacertainpositionasprimarilyconfidentialorpolicydetermining,whichshouldnotbethecase.
TheSenatorurgedthatsincetheConstitutionspeaksofpositionswhichare'primarilyconfidential,policy
determining,orhighlytechnicalinnature',itisnotwithinthepowerofCongresstodeclarewhatpositionsare
primarilyconfidentialorpolicydetermining.'Itisthenaturealoneofthepositionthatdetermineswhetheritis
policydeterminingorprimarilyconfidential.'Hence,theSenatorfurtherobserved,themattershouldbeleftto
the'properimplementationofthelaws,dependinguponthenatureofthepositiontobefilled',andiftheposition
is'highlyconfidential'thenthePresidentandtheCivilServiceCommissionermustimplementthelaw.

ToaquestionofSenatorTolentino,'Butinpositionsthatinvolvedbothconfidentialmattersandmatterswhich
areroutine,xxxwhoisgoingtodeterminewhetheritisprimarilyconfidential?'SenatorTaadareplied:

'SENATORTAADA:Well,atthefirstinstance,itistheappointingpowerthatdeterminesthat:thenatureofthe
position.IncaseofconflictthenitistheCourtthatdetermineswhetherthepositionisprimarilyconfidentialor
not"(Italicsintheoriginaltext).

Hence the dictum that, at least since the enactment of the Civil Service Act of 1959, it is the
nature of the position which finally determines whether a position is primarily confidential, policy
determiningorhighlytechnical.Andthecourtintheaforecitedcaseexplicitlydecreedthatexecutive
pronouncements,suchasPresidentialDecreeNo.1869,canbenomorethaninitialdeterminations
thatarenotconclusiveincaseofconflict.Itmustbeso,orelseitwouldthenliewithinthediscretionof
the Chief Executive to deny to any officer, by executive fiat, the protection of Section 4, Article XII
(now Section 2[3], Article IXB) of the Constitution.[11] In other words, Section 16 of Presidential

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/123708.htm 3/8
8/2/2017 CSCvsSalas:123708:June19,1997:J.Regalado:EnBanc

Decree No. 1869 cannot be given a literally stringent application without compromising the
constitutionallyprotectedrightofanemployeetosecurityoftenure.
ThedoctrinalrulingenunciatedinPierofindssupportinthe1935Constitutionandwasreaffirmed
inthe1973Constitution,aswellasintheimplementingrulesofPresidentialDecreeNo.807,orthe
Civil Service Decree of the Philippines.[12] It may well be observed that both the 1935 and 1973
Constitutionscontaintheprovision,inSection2,ArticleXIIBthereof,that"appointmentsintheCivil
Service,exceptastothosewhicharepolicydetermining,primarilyconfidential,orhighlytechnicalin
nature,shallbemadeonlyaccordingtomeritandfitness,tobedeterminedasfaraspracticableby
competitive examination." Corollarily, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 2260 states that "the non
competitiveorunclassifiedserviceshallbecomposedofpositionsexpresslydeclaredbylawtobein
the noncompetitive or unclassified service or those which are policydetermining, primarily
confidential, or highly technical in nature." Likewise, Section 1 of the General Rules in the
implementing rules of Presidential Decree No. 807 states that "appointments in the Civil Service,
except as to those which are the policydetermining, primarily confidential, or highly technical in
nature, shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be determined as far as practicable by
competitive examination." Let it here be emphasized, as we have accordingly italicized them, that
thesefundamentallawsandlegislativeorexecutiveenactmentsallutilizedthephrase"innature"to
describethecharacterofthepositionsbeingclassified.
The question that may now be asked is whether the Piero doctrine to the effect that
notwithstandinganystatutoryclassificationtothecontrary,itisstillthenatureoftheposition,asmay
beascertainedbythecourtincaseofconflict,whichfinallydetermineswhetherapositionisprimarily
confidential, policydetermining or highly technical is still controlling with the advent of the 1987
ConstitutionandtheAdministrativeCodeof1987,[13]BookVofwhichdealsspecificallywiththeCivil
Service Commission, considering that from these later enactments, in defining positions which are
policydetermining,primarilyconfidentialorhighlytechnical,thephrase"innature"wasdeleted.[14]
We rule in the affirmative. The matter was clarified and extensively discussed during the
deliberations in the plenary session of the 1986 Constitutional Commission on the Civil Service
provisions,towit:

"MR.FOZ.Whichdepartmentofgovernmenthasthepowerorauthoritytodeterminewhetherapositionis
policydeterminingorprimarilyconfidentialorhighlytechnical?

FR.BERNAS:Theinitialdecisionismadebythelegislativebodyorbytheexecutivedepartment,butthefinal
decisionisdonebythecourt.TheSupremeCourthasconstantlyheldthatwhetherornotapositionispolicy
determining,primarilyconfidentialorhighlytechnical,itisdeterminednotbythetitlebutbythenatureofthe
taskthatisentrustedtoit.Forinstance,wemighthaveacasewhereapositioniscreatedrequiringthatthe
holderofthatpositionshouldbeamemberoftheBarandthelawclassifiesthispositionashighlytechnical.
However,theSupremeCourthassaidbeforethatapositionwhichrequiresmeremembershipintheBarisnota
highlytechnicalposition.Sincetheterm'highlytechnical'meanssomethingbeyondtheordinaryrequirements
oftheprofession,itisalwaysaquestionoffact.

MR.FOZ.DoesnotCommissionerBernasagreethatthegeneralruleshouldbethatthemeritsystemorthe
competitivesystemshouldbeupheld?

FR.BERNAS.Iagreethatthatitshouldbethegeneralrulethatiswhyweareputtingthisasanexception.

MR.FOZ.Thedeclarationthatcertainpositionsarepolicydetermining,primarilyconfidentialorhighly
technicalhasbeenthesourceofpracticeswhichamounttothespoilssystem.

FR.BERNAS.TheSupremeCourthasalwayssaidthat,butifthelawoftheadministrativeagencysaysthata
positionisprimarilyconfidentialwheninfactitisnot,wecanalwayschallengethatincourt.Itisnotenough
thatthelawcallsitprimarilyconfidentialtomakeitsuchitisthenatureofthedutieswhichmakesaposition
primarilyconfidential.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/123708.htm 4/8
8/2/2017 CSCvsSalas:123708:June19,1997:J.Regalado:EnBanc

MR.FOZ.Theeffectofadeclarationthatapositionispolicydetermining,primarilyconfidentialorhighly
technicalasanexceptionistotakeitawayfromtheusualrulesandprovisionsoftheCivilServiceLawandto
placeitinaclassbyitselfsothatitcanavailitselfofcertainprivilegesnotavailabletotheordinaryrunof
governmentemployeesandofficers.

FR.BERNAS.AsIhavealreadysaid,thisclassificationdoesnotdoawaywiththerequirementofmeritand
fitness.Allitsaysisthattherearecertainpositionswhichshouldnotbedeterminedbycompetitiveexamination.

Forinstance,IhavejustmentionedapositionintheAtomicEnergyCommission.Shallwerequireaphysicistto
undergoacompetitiveexaminationbeforeappointment?Oraconfidentialsecretaryoranypositioninpolicy
determiningadministrativebodies,forthatmatter?Thereareotherwaysofdeterminingmeritandfitnessthan
competitiveexamination.Thisisnotadenialoftherequirementofmeritandfitness"(Italicssupplied).[15]

Itisthusclearlydeducible,ifnotaltogetherapparent,thattheprimarypurposeoftheframersof
the 1987 Constitution in providing for the declaration of a position as policydetermining, primarily
confidential or highly technical is to exempt these categories from competitive examination as a
meansfordeterminingmeritandfitness.Itmustbestressedfurtherthatthesepositionsarecovered
bysecurityoftenure,althoughtheyareconsiderednoncompetitiveonlyinthesensethatappointees
thereto do not have to undergo competitive examinations for purposes of determining merit and
fitness.
In fact, the CSC itself ascribes to this view as may be gleaned from its questioned resolution
whereinitstatedthat"thedeclarationofapositionisprimarilyconfidentialifatall,merelyexemptsthe
positionfromthecivilserviceeligibilityrequirement."Accordingly,thePiero doctrine continues to be
applicable up to the present and is hereby maintained. Such being the case, the submission that
PAGCORemployeeshavebeendeclaredconfidentialappointeesbyoperationoflawunderthebare
authorityofCSCResolutionNo.91830mustberejected.
We likewise find that in holding that herein private respondent is not a confidential employee,
respondent Court of Appeals correctly applied the "proximity rule" enunciated in the early but still
authoritativecaseofDelosSantosvs.Mallare,etal.,[16]whichheldthat:

"Everyappointmentimpliesconfidence,butmuchmorethanordinaryconfidenceisreposedintheoccupantofa
positionthatisprimarilyconfidential.Thelatterphrasedenotesnotonlyconfidenceintheaptitudeofthe
appointeeforthedutiesoftheofficebutprimarilycloseintimacywhichensuresfreedomofintercoursewithout
embarrassmentorfreedomfrommisgivingsofbetrayalsofpersonaltrustorconfidentialmattersofstate.xxx"
(Emphasissupplied).

ThiswasreiteratedinPiero,etal.vs.Hechanova,etal.,supra,thefactsofwhicharesubstantially
similartothecaseatbar,involvingasitdidemployeesoccupyingpositionsinvariouscapacitiesinthe
Port Patrol Division of the Bureau of Customs. The Court there held that the mere fact that the
members of the Port Patrol Division are part of the Customs police force is not in itself a sufficient
indicationthattheirpositionsareprimarilyconfidential.AfterquotingtheforegoingpassagefromDe
losSantos,ittrenchantlydeclared:

"Aspreviouslypointedout,therearenoprovenfactstoshowthatthereisanysuchcloseintimacyandtrust
betweentheappointingpowerandtheappelleesaswouldsupportafindingthatconfidencewastheprimary
reasonfortheexistenceofthepositionsheldbythemorfortheirappointmentthereto.Certainly,itisextremely
improbablethattheservicedemandsanysuchclosedtrustandintimaterelationbetweentheappointingofficial
and,notoneortwomembersalonebuttheentireCustomspatrol(HarborPolice)force,sothateverymember
thereofcanbesaidtohold'primarilyconfidential'posts".(Stresssupplied).

It can thus be safely determined therefrom that the occupant of a particular position could be
consideredaconfidentialemployeeifthepredominantreasonwhyhewaschosenbytheappointing
authority was, to repeat, the latter's belief that he can share a close intimate relationship with the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/123708.htm 5/8
8/2/2017 CSCvsSalas:123708:June19,1997:J.Regalado:EnBanc

occupant which ensures freedom of discussion, without fear of embarrassment or misgivings of

possiblebetrayalofpersonaltrustorconfidentialmattersofstate.Withal,wherethepositionoccupied
is remote from that of the appointing authority, the element of trust between them is no longer
predominant.[17]
Several factors lead to the conclusion that private respondent does not enjoy such "close
intimacy"withtheappointingauthorityofPAGCORwhichwouldotherwiseplacehiminthecategory
ofaconfidentialemployee,towit:
1.AsanInternalSecurityStaffmember,privaterespondentroutinely

a.performsdutyassignmentsatthegamingand/ornongamingareastopreventirregularities,misbehavior,
illegaltransactionsandotheranomalousactivitiesamongtheemployeesandcustomers,

b.reportsunusualincidentsandrelatedobservations/informationinaccordancewithestablishedproceduresfor
infractions/mistakescommittedonthetableandinotherareas

c.coordinateswithCCTVand/orexternalsecurityasnecessaryfortheprevention,documentationor
suppressionofanyunwantedincidentsatthegamingandnongamingareas

d.actsaswitness/representativeofSecurityDepartmentduringchipsinventory,refills,yields,cardshufflingand
finalshuffling

e.performsescortfunctionsduringthedeliveryoftablecapitalboxes,refillsandshoeboxestotherespective
tables,orduringtransferofyieldstoTreasury.[18]

Basedonthenatureofsuchfunctionsofhereinprivaterespondentandasfoundbyrespondent
Court of Appeals, while it may be said that honesty and integrity are primary considerations in his
appointmentasamemberoftheISS,hispositiondoesnotinvolve"suchcloseintimacy"betweenhim
and the appointing authority, that is, the Chairman of PAGCOR, as would ensure "freedom from
misgivingsofbetrayalsofpersonaltrust."[19]
2. Although appointed by the Chairman, ISS members do not directly report to the Office of the
Chairmanintheperformanceoftheirofficialduties.AnISSmembersissubjecttothecontrolandsupervision
ofanAreaSupervisorwho,inturn,onlyimplementsthedirectivesoftheBranchChiefSecurityOfficer.The
latterishimselfanswerabletotheChairmanandtheBoardofDirectors.Obviously,asthelowestinthechain
of command, private respondent does not enjoy that "primarily close intimacy" which characterizes a
confidentialemployee.
3. The position of an ISS member belongs to the bottom level of the salary scale of the corporation,
beinginPayClass2levelonly,whereasthehighestlevelisPayClass12.
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
confidentialemployee.Assetoutinthejobdescriptionofhisposition,oneisstruckbytheordinary,
routinaryandquotidiancharacterofhisdutiesandfunctions.Moreover,themodestrankandfungible
nature of the position occupied by private respondent is underscored by the fact that the salary
attached to it is a meager P2,200.00 a month. There thus appears nothing to suggest that private
respondents's position was "highly" or much less, "primarily" confidential in nature. The fact that,
sometimes, private respondent may handle ordinarily "confidential matters" or papers which are
somewhatconfidentialinnaturedoesnotsufficetocharacterizehispositionasprimarilyconfidential.
[20]

In addition, the allegation of petitioners that PAGCOR employees have been declared to be
confidential appointees in the case of Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation vs. Court of
Appeals,etal.,ante,ismisleading.Whatwastherestatedisasfollows:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/123708.htm 6/8
8/2/2017 CSCvsSalas:123708:June19,1997:J.Regalado:EnBanc

"TherecordshowsthattheseparationoftheprivaterespondentwasdoneinaccordancewithPD1869,which
providesthattheemployeesofthePAGCORholdconfidentialpositions.Montoyaisnotassailingthevalidityof
thatlaw.Theactthatheisquestioningiswhathecallsthearbitrarymannerofhisdismissalthereunderthathe
aversentitledhertodamagesundertheCivilCode."(Italicsours).

Thus, the aforecited case was decided on the uncontested assumption that the private
respondentthereinwasaconfidentialemployee,forthesimplereasonthattheproprietyofSection16
ofPresidentialDecreeNo.1869wasnevercontrovertednorraisedasanissuetherein.Thatdecree
was mentioned merely in connection with its provision that PAGCOR employees hold confidential
positions.Evidently,therefore,itcannotbeconsideredascontrollinginthecaseatbar.Eventhefact
that a statute has been accepted as valid in cases where its validity was not challenged does not
preclude the court from later passing upon its constitutionality in an appropriate cause where that
question is squarely and properly raised. Such circumstances merely reinforce the presumption of
constitutionalityofthelaw.[21]
WHEREFORE,theimpugnedjudgmentofrespondentCourtofAppealsisherebyAFFIRMEDin
toto.
SOORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Davide, Jr., Romero, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Hermosisima, Jr.,
PanganibanandTorres,Jr.,JJ.,concur.
Bellosillo,andFrancisco,JJ.,onleave.
Vitug,J.,seeseparateopinion.

[1]Penned by Associate Justice Delilah VidallonMagtolis, with Associate Justices Gloria C. Paras and Quirino D. Abad
Santos,Jr.,concurring:AnnexA,Petition,Rollo,26.
[2]OriginalRecord,22.

[3]Ibid.,148.

[4]G.R.No.91602.February26,1991.194SCRA548.

[5]G.R.No.93396,September30,1991,202SCRA191.

[6]Infra,fn.20.

[7]Thisprovisionreadsasfollows:"TheCivilServiceembracesallbranches,subdivisions,instrumentalitiesandagenciesof
theGovernment,includinggovernmentownedorcontrolledcorporationswithoriginalcharters."
[8]
Sec.12.Powersandfunctions.TheCommissionshallhavethefollowingpowersandfunctions:
xxx
(9)DeclarepositionsintheCivilServiceasmaybeprimarilyconfidential,highlytechnicalorpolicydeterminingxxx
[9]Salazarvs.Mathay,Sr.,etal.,L44061,September20,1976,73SCRA275.

[10]L22562,October22,1966,18SCRA417.

[11]"Noofficeroremployeeofthecivilserviceshallberemovedorsuspendedexceptforcauseprovidedbylaw"(Sec.2[3],
Art.IXB,1987Constitution).
[12]Approved,October6,1975.

[13] Executive Order No. 292 took effect on November 23, 1989 pursuant to Proclamation No. 495 of the Office of the
Presidentofevendate.
[14]
"Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be determined as far as
practicable, and, except to positions which are policydetermining, primarily confidential, or highly technical by competitive
examination."(Sec.2[2],Art.IXB,1987Constitution).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/123708.htm 7/8
8/2/2017 CSCvsSalas:123708:June19,1997:J.Regalado:EnBanc

"The Commission shall have the following powers and functions: x x x Declare positions in the Civil Service as may
properlybeprimarilyconfidential,highlytechnicalorpolicydetermining."(Sec.12[9]BookV.E.O.No.292).
[15]RecordoftheConstitutionalCommission,Vol.I,571572.

[16]87Phil.289(1950).

[17]Grio,etal.vs.CivilServiceCommission,etal.,supra.,fn.4.

[18]Petition,1213,Rollo,1920.

[19]Borres,etal.vs.CourtofAppeals,etal.,L36845,August21,1987,153SCRA120.

[20]Triavs.Sto.Tomas,etal.,G.R.No.85670July31,1991,199SCRA833.

[21]Pamilvs.Teleron,L34854,November20,1978,86SCRA413.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/123708.htm 8/8