Tria v Sto Tomas, et al

1991| Feliciano, J.
Tria was employed with Finance Ministry
Intelligence Bureau, now Economic Intelligence and
Investigation Bureau of the DoF as Management and Audit
Analyst I described as confidential in the letter of
appointment.
1984, he wrote a confidential report to FMIB
Depuy Commissioner detailing the nonfeasance of an
FMIB lawyer. In 1986, he submitted another confidential
report to the OP.
He then filed a vacation leave for 100 working
days. The application was approved by his immediate
superior. When he was already in Manila, a memorandum
was issued to him from FMIB central office which required
him to explain why no disciplinary action against him
should be taken for his writing directly to the OP.
Because he failed to respond to the memo,
another memo was issued informing him that his
application for leave was disapproved and he was directed
to report to work.
Petitioner however already left the country so he
was unable to comply with the 2nd memo. He was then
terminated for continuous absence without official leave
and for loss of confidence.
Issue: W/N an employee holding a position
considered as primarily confidential may be
dismissed on grounds of loss of confidence by the
appointing authority on the basis of the employees
having gone on unauthorized LOA and of his filing a
confidential report on one of his superiors directly
with the OP. No.
Ratio:
Effects of characterizing a position as primarily
confidential:
1. It renders inapplicable the ordinary requirement
of filling up a position in the Civil Service on the
basis of merit and fitness as determined by
competitive examinations;
2. While the 1987 Consti does not exempt such
positions from the operation of Section 2(3),
Article IX-B that no officer or employee of the
Civil Service shall be removed or suspended
except for cause provided by law, the cause
provided by law includes loss of confidence.
Petitioners position is not primarily confidential:
It is the nature of the position which finally
determines whether a position is primarily
confidential, policy determining or highly
technical;
Duties of petitioner is related to the study and
analysis of organizational structures and
procedures, with the view of making
recommendations designed to increase the levels
of efficiency and coordination within the
organization so analyzed;
His salary is a mere 1.5k a month;

There appears nothing to suggest that petitioners

position was highly or even primarily confidential
in nature;
The fact that petitioner may sometimes
handle confidential matters which are
confidential in nature does not suffice to
characterize their positions as primarily
confidential.
Court held petitioners position is not a primarily
confidential position as to render him removal
upon loss of confidence on the part of the
appointing power;

No other legal cause for his removal

Consti prohibition against suspension or dismissal
of an officer or employee of the Civil Service
except for cause provided by law is a guaranty of
both procedural and substantive due process;
Procedural due process requires notice and
hearing; since there was an investigation after
the return of petitioner from abroad, there was
substantial compliance;
Substantive due process requires dismissal or
suspension only for cause;
o
Petitioner charged with violation of official
rules and regulations (i.e. awol and
bypassed official channels in transmitting
a report);
o
SC: for leave, Court notes the leave had
been approved or indorsed by his
immediate superior; also, no showing
FMIB actually suffered any prejudice by
reason of non-availability of petitioner;
suspension of 30 days would have been
more than enough;
o
As for the transmittal of the report, Court
noted that the report as sent to an office
having overall admin supervision and
control of the FMIIB; it report was a
privileged communication and the author
thereof enjoys the benefit of the
presumption that he acted in good faith.
o
Court considered his act as an act of
personal and civic courage.
Granted