G.R. No. 258658 - Abadilla et al. vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation

Petitioners Mark Abadilla, Nelson Aguirre, Hayden Andaca Jr., Stella Marie Minette AAo, Noe Arca, et al. (collectively "Abadilla et al.") were employees of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR).
Abadilla et al. were engaged in roles such as cook, assistant cook, waiter, purchaser, pantry aide, food processor, food attendant, steward, assistant food checker, dishwasher, kitchen supervisor, and busboy at PAGCOR’s hotel and restaurant business.
Their employment was evidenced by various fixed-term contracts, occasionally renewed, with service duration ranging from one year to seventeen years.

PAGCOR is a government-owned or -controlled corporation (GOCC) created under Presidential Decree No. 1869, as amended by Republic Act No. 9487 (the PAGCOR Charter).
PAGCOR’s general manager in Bacolod City was Andres Lizares.

Abadilla et al. were engaged on a "no work, no pay" basis and performed work necessary to PAGCOR's business.
Despite working for PAGCOR, Abadilla et al. claimed to have been deprived of benefits available to regular PAGCOR employees, including overtime pay, service incentive leave, and vacation leave.
PAGCOR decided to close its hotel business in Bacolod City and transfer to a new location, electing not to renew Abadilla et al.'s contracts.
Several workers filed illegal dismissal complaints before the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO-VI), which dismissed the complaints for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that Abadilla et al. were job order workers not covered by civil service laws.
Abadilla et al. filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, which dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, remanding them to the CSC.
Subsequent filings with the CSCRO-VI were elevated to the national CSC for review.

CSC ordered Abadilla et al. to comply with complaint requisites (Section 11 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service), which they did.
Upon review, the CSC dismissed the complaints for failure to comply with formal requirements, denying a motion for reconsideration.
Abadilla et al. filed a petition for review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals (CA).
On December 18, 2019, the CA denied the petition for lack of merit, ruling that civil service laws do not apply to Abadilla et al. as they are not regular employees.
CA denied a motion for reconsideration on September 30, 2021.

Whether Abadilla et al. are regular employees of PAGCOR entitled to security of tenure and benefits under civil service laws.

Whether Abadilla et al. are confidential employees of PAGCOR as classified by PAGCOR Charter Section 16.

Whether the Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction over Abadilla et al.'s employment status and related complaints.