ROGELIO A. TRIA v. CHAIRMAN PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, CSC, RET. BRIG. GEN. JOSE T. ALMONTE, RET.

COL. ERNESTO P. RAVINA and RET. GEN. MIGUEL M. VILLAMOR

July 31. 1991 |Feliciano, J.

SUMMARY: Tria was an employee of the EIIB as Management and Audit Analyst, a position described in his letter of
appointment as “confidential.” He was dismissed on grounds of “loss of confidence” by the appointing authority on the
basis of his having gone on unauthorized leave of absence and of his having filed a confidential report on one of his
superiors directly with the Office of the President. CSC denied Tria’s reinstatement and backwages. SC ruled in favor
of Tria. Tria’s position was not “highly confidential” or “primarily confidential” in nature, thus, it cannot be based on
loss of trust and confidence. Tria may only be removed “except for cause provided by law” and due process must be
observed. Substanital due process was not observed by EIIB since Tria’s absence was approved by his immediate
supervisors and the confidential report he filed directly with the Office of the President was done in good faith.
DOCTRINE: The effects of characterizing a position as “primarily confidential” are two-fold: Firstly, such
characterization 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; and Secondly, while the 1987 Constitution does not
exempt such positions from the operation of the principle set out in Article IX (B), Section 2 (3) of the same
Constitution 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."

FACTS:
 Rogelio A. Tria had been employed with the Bureau of Intelligence and Investigation (later renamed Finance
Ministry Intelligence Bureau (FMIB), now known as the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB)) of
the Department of Finance, Region 5, Legaspi City, as a Management and Audit Analyst I, a position expressly
described in the letter of appointment as “confidential.” The appointment was signed by “Pelagio A. Cruz,
Lieutenant General, AFP (Ret), Commissioner, FMIB.”
 On 27 September 1984, petitioner wrote a confidential report to the FMIB Deputy Commissioner detailing the
nonfeasance of a FMIB lawyer assigned to Region 5. Petitioner's report recommended the lawyer's replacement
"with a competent and able lawyer to handle the cases brought to his attention."
 On 14 October 1986, petitioner submitted another confidential report, addressed to the Deputy Executive
Secretary, Office of the President, this time concerning Col. Jackson P. Alparce (Ret.), FMIB Region 5 Director.
 On 20 October 1986, petitioner filed an application for vacation leave for 100 working days, covering the period 1
November 1986 to 30 April 1987. Petitioner sought to take advantage of a Civil Service Circular which allows
employees who propose to seek interim employment abroad, to go on prolonged leave of absence without pay
without being considered separated from the service.
o The application was approved by his immediate supervisor and Chief, Intelligence and Investigation
Service, Col. Amistoso and the personnel officer, Col. Rodriguez, both based in the Region 5 office of the
FMIB.
 On 23 October 1986, when petitioner was already in Manila attending to the processing of his travel papers, a
Memorandum was sent to him in Legaspi City from the FMIB Central Office in Quezon City by respondent Assistant
FMIB Commissioner Brig. Gen. Miguel Villamor (Ret.), referring to the confidential report sent out to the Office of
the President. (See Notes)
 Since petitioner had failed to receive and hence to respond to the above Memorandum, another Memorandum
from Quezon City dated 17 November 1986 was issued, this time by respondent Col. Rabina, Chief, Administrative
Service, FMIB, reminding petitioner of his duty to submit the required written explanation. (See Notes)
 Petitioner, however, had already left the country, and was unable to comply with the express directives of the
second Memorandum. He was therefore considered to be on absence without official leave (AWOL). This prolonged
absence, as well as his failure to explain his sending out the confidential report to Malacañang, prompted
respondent EIIB Commissioner Brig. Gen. Jose Almonte to issue Letter Order informing Tria of the termination of
his services retroactive to 1 November 1986 for continuous absence without official leave and for loss of
confidence.
 It was upon his return to the country sometime in May 1987 that petitioner came to know of the abovementioned
Letter-Order and of the two Memoranda. In a letter dated 20 May 1987 to respondent Almonte, petitioner asked
for reinstatement, stating that his application for vacation leave had been approved by his immediate
chief and the personnel officer. With respect to the confidential report he had addressed to the Deputy
Executive Secretary, petitioner explained:
o “ I would like to state that the reason why I submitted my report to the Office of the President is precisely
to protect the image of the bureau. Earlier, I handed a report to the then Deputy Commissioner Mendoza
regarding said irregularities committed sometime in 1984-85, particularly by Atty. Geronga, R-5 and
Director Col. Alfarce. No investigation was undertaken in spite of my report. In the meanwhile, the FMIB-
R-5 always appeared in the local newspaper regarding the unscrupulous behavior of the director which not
only affects the good image of our organization but also of the subordinates of the office. Thus, I felt in
good faith that the matter sho.uld be brought to the attention of the Deputy Executive Secretary of
Malacañang so that appropriate action can be taken for the good of the service. I submit that I did this in
 my honest belief that it is my duty to do so as a public servant and a loyal member of this organization. I
reiterate that the same was done in good faith and not for any selfish motive.”
 Reinstatement was, however, denied by respondent Rabina in a letter: “Be informed that Commissioner, EIIB has
directed the Investigation & Prosecution Office this bureau to conduct a brief investigation on your case and the
established facts show that this office committed no injustice. Your violation of office rules and regulations were
the grounds for your termination for loss of confidence.”
 His request for payment of the cash equivalent of his accrued leave credits (179 days) was also denied by Villamor
on the ground that: “Section 6 of the Civil Service rules and laws provides that the removal for cause of an official
or employee shall carry with it forfeiture of other benefits arising from his employment.'"
 Petitioner then filed a petition for review with prayer for reinstatement and backwages before CSC.
 CSC: Denied. Tria’s application for vacation leave, notwithstanding the accumulation of sufficient leave credits,
was discretionary on the part of respondent Rabina, the approving official, citing In re: Nicolasura, Victor (CSC
Res. No. 88-251) dated 25 May 1988 and Section 20 of the Revised Civil Service Rules which read: "Leave of
absence for any reason other than the serious illness of an officer or employee must be contingent upon the needs
of the service."

RULING: WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is hereby GRANTED DUE COURSE, the Comments filed by
respondents are hereby CONSIDERED as their Answers to the Petition and Resolutions Nos. 88-150 and 88-787 of
public respondent Civil Service Commission as well as Letter-Order No. 06-87 of public respondent EIIB
Commissioner, are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Public respondents are hereby ORDERED to reinstate forthwith
petitioner to his former position, or to a position of equivalent rank and compensation, and to pay him the backwages,
allowances and other benefits lawfully due him counted from May 1987, when he returned to the country from his
leave of absence, until actual reinstatement, less one month's backwages. No costs.

Whether Tria’s dismissal was proper – NO

Whether 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 employee's having gone on
unauthorized leave of absence and of his having filed a confidential report on one of his superiors directly
with the Office of the President - NO
 We begin with the proposition that the effects of characterizing a position as “primarily confidential” are two-fold:
o Firstly, such characterization 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; and
o Secondly, while the 1987 Constitution does not exempt such positions from the operation of the principle
set out in Article IX (B), Section 2 (3) of the same Constitution 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."
 It is said to be a settled rule that those holding primarily confidential positions "continue for so long as confidence
in them endures. Their termination can be justified on the ground of loss of confidence because in that case their
cessation from office involves no removal but the expiration of their term of office."
 Notwithstanding the refined distinction between removal from office and expiration of the term of a public officer,
the net result is loss of tenure upon loss of confidence on the part of the appointing power.
 A position in the Civil Service may be considered primarily confidential:
(1) when the President of the Philippines, upon recommendation of the Civil Service Commission, has declared
that position to be primarily confidential; or
(2) when the position, given the character of the duties and functions attached to it, is primarily confidential in
nature.
 All positions in the EIIB were apparently declared as "highly confidential" by former President Marcos.
 When one examines, however, the actual duties and functions of petitioner as a "Management and Audit Analyst
I" in the FMIB, as set out in the job description of that position, one is struck by the ordinary and day to day
character of such duties and functions (See Notes)
 Piñero v. Hechanova (J.B.L. Reyes, J.): “It is plain that, at least since the enactment of the 1959 Civil Service Act
(R.A. 2260), it is the nature of the position which finally determines whether a position is primarily confidential,
policy determining or highly technical. Executive pronouncements can be no more than initial determinations that
are not conclusive in case of conflict. And it must be so, or else it would then lie within the discretion of the Chief
Executive to deny to any officer, by executive fiat, the protection of section 4, Article XII, of the Constitution.”
 De los Santos v. Mallare (J. Tuason): “Three specified classes of positions — policy-determining, primarily
confidential and highly technical — are excluded from the merit system and dismissal at pleasure of officers and
employees appointed therein is allowed by the Constitution. These positions involve the highest degree of
confidence, or are closely bound up with and dependent on other positions to which they are subordinate, or are
temporary in nature. It may truly be said that the good of the service itself demands that appointments coming
under this category be terminable at the will of the officer that makes them. Every appointment implies
confidence, but much more than ordinary confidence is reposed in the occupant of a position that is primarily
confidential. The latter phrase denotes not only confidence in the aptitude of the appointee for the duties of the
 office but primarily close intimacy which insures freedom of [discussion and delegation and reporting] without
embarrassment or freedom from misgivings of betrayals of personal trust or confidential matters of state…”
 The positions which this Court has in the past characterized as "primarily confidential" include: private secretaries
of public functionaries; a security officer assigned as bodyguard of the person of a public officer and responsible
for taking security measures for the safety of such official; City Legal Officer of Davao City vis-à-vis the Davao
City Mayor; Provincial Attorney of Iloilo Province vis-à-vis the Governor of Iloilo Province.
 It is also instructive to refer to some of the positions which the Court has refused to designate as “primarily
confidential:” e.g., members of the Customs Police Force or Port Patrol; Special Assistant to the Governor of the
Central Bank, in charge of the Export Department; Senior Executive Assistant, Clerk I and Supervising Clerk I and
stenographer in the Office of the President.
 It is evident that the duties of petitioner related to the study and analysis of organizational structures and
procedures, with the end in view of making recommendations designed to increase the levels of efficiency and
coordination within the organization so analyzed. Moreover, the modest rank and fungible nature of the position
occupied by petitioner, is underscored by the fact that the salary attached to it was no more than P1,500/month
at the time he went on leave (October, 1986). There thus appears nothing to suggest that petitioner's
position was "highly" or even "primarily confidential" in nature.
 The fact that petitioner may, sometimes, handle "confidential matters" or papers which are confidential in nature,
does not suffice to characterize their positions as primarily confidential.
 Accordingly, we believe and so hold that petitioner Tria's particular position of "Management and Audit Analyst I"
is not a "primarily confidential" position so as to render him removable upon, or the expiration of his term of office
concurrent with, "loss of confidence" on the part of the appointing power who, as already noted, was the then
Commissioner of the FMIB.
 If petitioner Tria was not legally removable upon "loss of confidence" on the part of the FMIB Commissioner, was
there nonetheless legal cause provided by law for his dismissal from the service?
 We believe that the constitutional 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 that suspension or dismissal come, as a general rule, only after notice and
hearing. – COMPLIED WITH
 AS APPLIED: The EIIB issued a Memorandum to petitioner, after he was already in Manila, requiring him to
explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for having submitted a report directly to the Office
of the President, Malacañang, "which adversely affected the bureau's image and placed the Commissioner in an
embarrassing position," which Memorandum was not received by petitioner. However, after his return from abroad
and upon request of petitioner, another investigation was conducted by the EIIB where petitioner had an
opportunity to explain his side of the matter. The Court considers that, under the circumstances of this case the
subsequent investigation constituted substantial compliance with the demands of procedural due process.
 Substantive due process requires, among other things, that an officer or employee of the Civil Service be
suspended or dismissed only "for cause," a phrase which, so far as concerns dismissals of public officers not
holding positions which are "policy determining, highly technical or primarily confidential," has acquired, according
to this Court, the following "well-defined concept." "It means for reasons which the law and sound policy recognize
as sufficient warrant for removal, that is, legal cause, and not merely causes which the appointing power in the
exercise of discretion may deem sufficient. It is implied that officers may not be removed at the mere will of those
vested with the power of removal, or without cause. Moreover, the cause must relate to and effect 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
 AS APPLIED: In the instant case, we have noted earlier that petitioner was charged with violation of official rules
and regulations consisting more specifically, of: (1) having gone on an extended unauthorized leave of absence;
(2) having bypassed official channels in transmitting a report concerning alleged misfeasance or non-feasance on
the part of a superior officer of the EIIB directly to the Office of the President through the Deputy Executive
Secretary, rather than through the respondent EIIB Commissioner.
o Tria’s application for leave without pay had been approved or indorsed for approval by his immediate
superior in the FMIB, Region 5 Office, where Tria was assigned, and so Tria was not completely without
basis in believing that the formal approval of his application in the FMIB Central Office would follow as a
matter of course.
o Tria’s immediate superiors in the Region 5, FMIB Office were the persons in the best position to ascertain
whether his presence in the Regional office during the period covered by his application for leave without
pay was really demanded by imperious exigencies of the service. The record is bare of any indication what
those exigencies were, at that particular time.
o There is also no showing that the FMIB actually suffered any prejudice by reason of the non-availability of
the services of petitioner during his leave without pay. Petitioner was, it should be recalled, a
"Management and Audit Analyst I," a humble rank separated by many ranks from the appointing power,
the FMIB Commissioner.
 It thus appears to the Court that, on balance, the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service was unduly harsh
in the case of petitioner; that suspension for thirty (30) days would have been more than adequate punishment
for precipitately going on leave without pay prior to formal approval of his leave by the Central Office of the FMIB;
 and that the real and efficient cause of his dismissal from the service was the fact that he had bypassed official
channels in rendering the confidential report addressed to the Deputy Executive Secretary, Office of the President,
concerning the then Regional Director of FMIB, Region 5.
 After careful consideration, we believe and so hold that, in the circumstances of thus case, that act of
petitioner did not constitute lawful cause for his dismissal from the service.
 In the case at bar, we note that petitioner sent his confidential (and presumably sealed) report to an office having
overall administrative supervision and control over the FMIB (i.e., the Office of the President); the report was not,
in other words, sent either to the media or to an office or agency having no administrative jurisdiction over the
public official or office complained of. That report was a privileged communication and the author thereof enjoys
the benefit of the presumption that he acted in good faith. The respondents have not alleged that petitioner acted
with malice in fact. We do not believe that petitioner's act constituted serious misconduct but rather, on the
contrary, was an act of personal and civic courage by which petitioner exhibited his loyalty to the FMIB as an
institution and ultimately to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines.
 Considerations of fundamental public policy thus compel us to hold that petitioner was dismissed
without lawful cause and must, therefore, be reinstated to the position he previously held or, if that
position is no longer available, to some other position in the EIIB of equivalent rank and emoluments.
 In addition, petitioner is entitled to payment of his backwages (basic salary plus allowances, if any) computed
from the time of his return from his leave of absence, minus an amount equivalent to one month's backwages
representing the appropriate penalty for petitioner's infraction of ordinary office rules.

NOTES:
 First Memorandum:
“Be reminded that as an agent of FMIB, it is inherent in your duties to report to the Commissioner or other
authorities of FMIB of any irregularity committed by employees/officials in that Region [5] to enable them to take
appropriate action investigation and/or disciplinary action.
However, it appears that you opted to submit said report directly to the Office of the President, Malacañang which
adversely affected the Bureau's image and placed the Commissioner in an embarrassing position
In view thereof, you are required to submit your explanation in writing within five (5) working days from receipt
thereof why no disciplinary action should be taken against you for non-compliance with office rules and
regulations.”
 Second Memorandum:
"Be informed further that your application for sick [should have been vacation] leave dated October 22, 1986 . . .
has been disapproved pursuant to Sec. 16 of Civil Service Rule No. XVI which reads thus: 'Leave of absence for
any reason other than serious illness must be contingent upon the needs of the service.'
Inasmuch as your services in that Region [5] is (sic) needed, you are directed to report for work thereat within
ten (10) working days from the date of this Memorandum otherwise, this office will be constrained to drop you
from the rolls of FMIB for prolonged unauthorized absence and non-compliance with office rules and regulations."
 Duties and Functions of Management and Audit Analyst I:
o 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."
