7/21/2019 Pagcor vs Angara Digest

1/2

PAGCOR vs Anggara

Respondents Beatriz T. La Victoria (La Victoria) and Marita A. Angara(Angara) were Sot Mac!ine Roving To"en Attendants (SMRTAs) o# petitionerP!iippine A$%se$ent and Ga$ing Corporation (PAGCOR) assigned at its

casino in &avao Cit'.

T!e PAGCOR Board o# &irectors dis$issed t!e$ #ro$ service eective*%ne +, -/ #or oss o# tr%st and con0dence.

1t appears t!at respondent La Victoria was dis$issed #or aeged s!ortseing o# to"ens w!ie respondent Angara was dis$issed #or aeged to"enpassing and condoning or active' assisting La Victoria in covering %p !er

s!ortage.

Respondents 0ed t!eir appea $e$orand%$ wit! t!e Civi Service

Co$$ission (CSC). CSC directed PAGCOR C!air$an Aicia L. Re'es to s%2$it!er co$$ent. 1nstead o# 0ing a co$$ent petitioner 0ed a $otion to dis$isson t!e gro%nd t!at t!e appea was 0ed o%t o# ti$e.

CSC iss%ed Reso%tion reversed t!e respondentsdis$issa and orderedt!eir reinstate$ent.

1ss%e3

-.) 456 (CSC) 7RR7& 16 &7CLAR16G PR1VAT7 R7SPO6&76TS &1SM1SSAL is

41T8O9T CA9S7 A6& 41T8O9T &97 PROC7SS 7V76 41T8O9T A4A1T16G T87COMM76T O: T87 P7T1T1O67R A6& T87 COMPL7T7 R7COR&S O: T87 CAS7487R7 T87 M7R1T O: T87 CAS7 S8O9L& 8AV7 B776 :A1RL; A6& 1MPART1ALL;ASS7SS7&

+.) 456 LA V1CTOR1A A6& A6GARA 8OL& CO6:1&76T1AL POS1T1O6S 48OS7R7MOVAL :ROM T87 S7RV1C7 CA6 B7 *9ST1:17& T8RO9G8 LOSS O:TR9ST A6& CO6:1&76C7.

8ed3

-. 6o. T!e CSC did not err in r%ing t!at respondents were not dis$issed #orca%se and a#ter d%e processsince loss of trust and condence is not

one among the grounds for disciplinary actionand t!ere was no

#or$a investigation cond%cted 2%t a s%$$ar' proceeding.

+. 6o.It is the nature of the position which determines whether a

position is primarily condential, policy-determining or highly

technical.

:ro$ t!e nat%re o# respondents#%nctions t!eir organizationa ran"ingand t!eir co$pensation eve occ%p'ing one o# t!e owest ran"s in petitioner

cannot 2e considered con0dentia e$po'ees.

7/21/2019 Pagcor vs Angara Digest

2/2

Petitioner, therefore, cannot justify respondentsdismissal on

loss of trust and condence since the latter arenot condential

employees.

Moreover, the petitioner cannot claim it was deprived of due

process of law when the CSC granted respondentsappeal without the

comment of the petitioner or the records before it.Petitioner was

directed to 0e its co$$ent 2%t c!ose instead to $ove #or t!e dis$issa o# t!e

appea.

It must be remembered that the CSC, being an administrative

body with uasi-judicial powers, is not bound by the technical rules ofprocedure and evidence in the adjudication of cases, subject only tolimitations imposed by basic reuirements of due process