VS. CARLOS P. RILLORAZA.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the appeal of Carlos P. Rilloraza is hereby dismissed. However, the Commission finds appellant guilty only of Simple Neglect of Duty and metes out upon him the penalty of one month and one day suspension. The assailed Resolution of PAGCOR Board of Directors is thus modified. The Commission denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration in Resolution No. 990465 dated February 16, 1999. [3] On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the resolution of the Commission. [4] The appellate court ordered petitioner to reinstate private respondent with payment of full backwages plus all tips, bonuses and other benefits accruing to his position and those received by other casino operations managers for the period starting January 5, 1998 until his actual reinstatement. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, [5] which was denied by the appellate court in the assailed resolution of November 29, 1999. [6] Hence, the instant petition. PAGCOR avers that: I THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT FAILED AND REFUSED TO CONSIDER THAT RESPONDENT WAS A CONFIDENTIAL APPOINTEE OR EMPLOYEE WHOSE TERM HAD EXPIRED BY REASON OF LOSS OF CONFIDENCE. II THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE CSC RESOLUTIONS MODIFYING THE PENALTY METED OUT ON RESPONDENT FROM DISMISSAL TO SUSPENSION, DESPITE THE GRAVITY OR SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSES COMMITTED BY THE LATTER ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXTRAORDINARY RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES REPOSED IN THE RESPONDENT BY VIRTUE OF HIS POSITION. The wellspring of stability in government service is the constitutional guarantee of entrance according to merit and fitness and security of tenure, viz: xxx xxx xxx (2) 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 policy-determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical, by competitive examination. (3) No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law. [7] xxx xxx xxx In the case at bar, we are basically asked to determine if there is sufficient cause to warrant the dismissal, not merely the suspension, of respondent who, petitioner maintains, occupies a primarily confidential position. In this connection, Section 16 of Presidential Decree No. 1869 [8] provides: Exemption .--All positions in the Corporation, whether technical, administrative, professional or managerial are exempt from the provisions of the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations, and shall be governed only by the personnel management policies set by the Board of Directors. All employees of the casinos and related services shall be classified as "Confidential" appointee. Petitioner argues that pursuant to the aforequoted provision, respondent is a primarily confidential employee. Hence, he holds office at the pleasure of the appointing power and may be removed upon the cessation of confidence in him by the latter. Such would not amoun