Case Digest (G.R. No. 141141)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 141141)
Facts:
Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) v. Carlos P. Rilloraza, G.R. No. 141141, June 25, 2001, Supreme Court Second Division, De Leon, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner PAGCOR (respondent-employer in the administrative proceedings) filed administrative charges on November 5, 1997 against respondent Carlos P. Rilloraza, a casino operations manager, for dishonesty, grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and loss of confidence arising from events during his October 9, 1997 shift (6:00 a.m.–2:00 p.m.). The complaints alleged that four personal checks totaling P5,000,000 were endorsed and cashed through facilitation by a COM with the Treasury Division without proper authorizations, that Rilloraza himself facilitated endorsement of one check for P500,000, and that he failed to stop a top-ranking officer (BM Richard Syhongpan) from betting beyond the P5,000 per-deal limit, playing at big tables, and playing past the allowable 6:00 a.m. cutoff.
Respondent answered during PAGCOR's internal investigation, explaining he had been recently recalled to the branch, sought verification from COM Carlos Gonzales who assured him the checks were guaranteed by BM Syhongpan, tried unsuccessfully to reach the Senior Branch Manager (SBM) and Branch Manager for Operations (BMO) until later that day, attempted to stop Syhongpan when he saw him playing, relied on Syhongpan's representation that Syhongpan was playing for a customer (Ms. Corazon Castillo), and instructed a subordinate to return cash ("balato") allegedly offered by Syhongpan. He asserted he approved only one check (P500,000) after due verification and exercised attempts to notify superiors.
On December 2, 1997, the PAGCOR Board dismissed Rilloraza (effective December 5, 1997) for dishonesty, grave misconduct and/or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and loss of confidence, and denied reconsideration on December 16, 1997. Rilloraza appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which in Resolution No. 983033 (November 20, 1998) modified the penalty: while the appeal was dismissed, the CSC found him guilty only of simple neglect of duty and imposed one month and one day suspension, thereby modifying the PAGCOR Board decision; the CSC denied PAGCOR’s motion for reconsideration in Resolution No. 990465 (February 16, 1999).
The Court of Appeals (CA) thereafter affirmed the CSC's resolution, ordered PAGCOR to reinstate Rilloraza with full backwages and other benefits for the period beginning January 5, 1998 until actual reinstatement, and denied PAGCOR’s motion for reconsideration in its November 29, 1999 resolution. PAGCOR then filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking reversal of the CA decision and resolution.
PAGCOR principally argued (1) Rilloraza was a primarily confidential appointee under Section 16 of P.D. No. 1869 and thus held office at the pleasure of the appointing power (so his removal was an expiration of term), and (2) the gravity of the offenses warranted dismissal rather than mere suspension.
Issues:
- Was respondent Carlos P. Rilloraza a primarily confidential appointee whose term had expired by reason of loss of confidence, such that PAGCOR could remove him without invoking civil service protections?
- Did the evidence support dismissal for dishonesty, grave misconduct or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, or was the CSC’s finding of simple neglect of duty (and imposition of suspension) correct?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)