Tria v. Sto.

Tomas 015
G.R. No. 85670, July 31, 1991, Feliciano, J.
Digested by Pat PubOff
Topic:
PET was employed as a management and audit analyst in the EIIB; his appointment expressly described his position
as confidential. Later, he was removed from service for allegedly being on AWOL and for directly submitting a
confidential report to the Office of the President and hence bypassing the internal rules and regs of the bureau. SC
ruled that PETs position was not confidential as can be seen by his duties and functions. Not being confidential,
he cannot be removed on the ground of loss of confidence but only on grounds provided for by law which must
relate to and affect the administration of the office, and must be restricted to something of a substantial nature directly
affecting the rights and interests of the public.

FACTS
PET Rogelio Tria was employed with the Bureau of Intelligence and Investigation, now
Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) of the Department of Finance.
o He was a Management and Audit Analyst I, a position described in the letter of
appointment as confidential
o The appointment was signed by the Commissioner of EIIB, Pelagio Cruz
In 1986, PET Tria submitted a confidential report addressed to the Deputy Executive
Secretary, Office of the President (OP), concerning an alleged nonfeasance of Col. Jackson
Alparce, EIIB Region 5 Director.
Meanwhile, PET Tria also filed an application for vacation leave for 100 working days
seeking to take advantage of a Civil Service circular which allows employees who propose
to seek interim employment abroad, to go on prolonger leave of absence without pay
without being considered separated from the service.
o This was approved by his immediate superiors: Chief Intelligence and Investigation
Service Col. Amistoso and the personnel officer Col. Rodriquez.
When PET Tria was processing his travel papers in Manila, a Memorandum was sent to
him in Legaspi City from the EIIB central office by Asst. Commissioner Villamor referring
to the confidential report sent out to the OP.
o He was told that his act of directly submitting a report to the OP affected the
Bureaus image and placed the Commissioner in an embarrassing position.
o He was then required to submit an explanation within 5 days why no disciplinary
action shuld be taken against him.
PET Tria failed to receive and hence to respond the Memorandum. A month later, another
Memorandum, this time by the Chief of Administrative Service Rabina, reminding PET of
his duty to submit the written explanation.
o PET was further informed that his application for leave has been disapproved by
the Commissioner and was directed to report for work.
PET Tria, however, had already left the country and was unable to comply with the express
directives of the second Memorandum.
 o He was declared to be on AWOL and eventually terminated from service through
a letter from the EIIB Commissioner.
o The ground for his termination was loss of confidence.
PET Tria asked for reinstatement. This was denied. Upon appeal to CSC, the latter denied
his petition.
ISSUE
Whether PET Tria was lawfully terminated from service- NO. Must be reinstated to the position
or to some other position in the EIIC of equivalent rank and emoluments. Also entitled to
backwages.

RATIO
Primarily Confidential Positions
The ordinary requirement of filling up a position in the Civil Service on the basis of merit
and fitness as determined by competitive examinations is inapplicable.
Also, cause provided by law as ground for termination from service includes loss of
confidence
When considered confidential:
o When the President, upon recommendation of the CSC, has declared that position
to be primarily confidential
o When the position, given the character of the duties and functions attached to it, is
primarily confidential in nature.

PET Tria is not a confidential employee. Hence, loss of confidence is not a valid ground to
terminate him from service
Despite the fact that all positions in the EIIB were apparently declared as highly
confidential by Pres. Marcos in LoI No. 71
o It is the nature of the position which determines whether a position is primarily
confidential, policy determining or highly technical. Executive pronouncements
can be no more that initial determinations that are not conclusive in case of conflict.
Looking at the actual duties and functions1 of PET Tria as a management and audit analyst
I, it is evident that his job is related to the study and analysis of organizational structures

1
"Prepares required survey materials, work plans and schedules; gathers data and makes investigations and analyzes (sic) of
administrative problems relating to organization, personnel and procedure; supplements data gathered by interviewing heads of
office or private individuals or by observing actual operations; examines and analyzes reorganization proposals in the light gathered
and facts observed; analyzes causes of inefficiency or lack of economy, undertakes required study and research; prepares survey
reports and write (sic) drafts of tentative organization plans, discusses and justifies such plans to supervisor and appropriate bodies;
maintains close liaison work with head of offices or organizations; studies operational methods and procedures of the organization
to simplify the work and improve efficiency; studies and recommends measures to insure industrial safety and prevention of
accidents; supervises the installation of management control devices; assists in the compilation, analysis and interpretation of
important statistics for use of management."

 and procedures, with the end in view of making recommendations designed to increase the
levels of efficiency and coordination within the organization.
o Nothing to suggest that his position was highly or even primarily confidential
in nature.
o The fact that he may, sometime, handle confidential matters or papers which are
confidential in nature, does not suffice to characterize their positions as primarily
confidential.

There was no legal cause provided by law for PETs dismissal from service
Security of tenure is a guaranty of both procedural and substantive due process.
o Procedural due process: suspension or dismissal come as a general rule, only after
notice and hearing,
Complied with in this case since after return of PET in Manila, another
investigation was conducted by the EIIB where he had an opportunity to
explain his side of the matter.
o Substantive due process: an officer or EE be suspended or dismissed only for
cause. The cause must relate to and affect the administration of the office, and
must be restricted to something of a substantial nature directly affecting the rights
and interests of the public.
Not complied with here:
(1) PETs application for leave without pay had been approved or indorsed for approval by his
immediate superiors so PET was not completely without basis in believing that the formal
approval of his application in the Central Office would follow as a matter of course.
a. His immediate superiors were the persons in the best position to ascertain whether
his presence in the office during the period covered by his leave was really
demanded by exigencies of the service.
(2) PETs act of directly submitting a confidential report to the OP did not constitute lawful
cause fir his dismissal from service.
a. PET sent his report to an office having overall admin supervision and control over
the EIIC. The report was not sent to either the media or to an office of agency
having no admin jurisdiction over the public official or office complained of.
b. The report was a privileged communication and the author thereof enjoys the
benefit of the presumption that he acted in good faith.
c. On the contrary, PETs act was an act of personal and civic courage by which he
exhibited his loyalty to EIIB as an institution and ultimately to the Government of
PH.
DISPOSITIVE
Reversed. Petition dismissed.