This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-11-19 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Further, the Court cannot uphold the recommendation of OAS that Mr. Moral be dismissed for loss of trust and confidence by the passengers of the bus because a driver is not a confidential employee as defined in Civil Service Commission v. Salas, [4] thus:The occupant of a particular position could be considered a confidential employee if the predominant reason why he was chosen by the appointing authority was the latter's belief that he can share a close intimate relationship with the occupant which ensures freedom of discussion, without fear of embarrassment or misgivings of possible betrayal of personal trust or confidential matters of state. Withal, where the position occupied is remote from that of the appointing authority, the element of trust between them is no longer predominant. | |||||
|
2008-02-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Since the definition in De los Santos came out, it has guided numerous other cases.[41] Thus, it still stands that a position is primarily confidential when by the nature of the functions of the office there exists "close intimacy" between the appointee and appointing power which insures freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings of betrayals of personal trust or confidential matters of state. | |||||
|
2005-11-15 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The issue on the nature of employment of an employee of the petitioner has been laid to rest in Civil Service Commission vs. Salas, wherein the Court en banc, speaking through the learned Justice Florenz D. Regalado, held:[37] | |||||
|
2002-08-01 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| DIRECTING the respondent PAGCOR to reinstate the petitioner to his position in the Internal Security Staff with full payment of back wages for the period he was separated from the service until his reinstatement, without prejudice to the filing of administrative charges against him if warranted. "SO ORDERED."[8] (italics supplied) | |||||