Civil Service Commission vs Dacoycoy

To constitute a violation of the law, it suffices that an appointment is extended or issued in favor of a relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of the chief of the bureau or office, or the person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee.

Facts:

In 1995, George P. Suan, Citizens Crime Watch Vice-President, Allen Chapter, Northern Samar, filed with the Civil Service Commission (CSC), Quezon City, a complaint for habitual drunkenness, misconduct and nepotism against respondent Pedro O. Dacoycoy. After a formal investigation, the CSC promulgated its resolution on January 28, 1997 finding no substantial evidence to support the charge of habitual drunkenness and misconduct. However, the CSC found Dacoycoy guilty of nepotism on two counts as a result of the appointment of his two sons, Rito and Ped Dacoycoy, as driver and utility worker, respectively, and their assignment under his immediate supervision and control as the Vocational School Administrator Balicuatro College of Arts and Trades, and imposed on him the penalty of dismissal from the service.

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the CSC’s resolution was reversed ruling that the respondent did not appoint his two sons; hence, respondent was not guilty of nepotism. The Court further held that it is “the person who recommends or appoints who should be sanctioned, as it is he who performs the prohibited act.

Issues:

1. Whether or not Dacoycoy is guilty of nepotism.

2. Who may take an appeal from an adverse decision of the appellate court in an administrative civil service disciplinary case

Held:

Yes. The law defines nepotism as all appointments to the national, provincial, city and municipal governments or in any branch or instrumentality thereof, including government owned or controlled corporations, made in favor of a relative of the appointing or recommending authority, or of the chief of the bureau or office, or of the persons exercising immediate supervision over him, are hereby prohibited. The word “relative” and members of the family referred to are those related within the third degree either of consanguinity or of affinity.

The following are exempted from the operations of the rules on nepotism: (a) persons employed in a confidential capacity, (b)  teachers, (c)  physicians, and (d)  members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines: Provided, however, That in each particular instance full report of such appointment shall be made to the Commission.”

Under the definition of nepotism, one is guilty of nepotism if an appointment is issued in favor of a relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of any of the following:

a) appointing authority;

b) recommending authority;

c) chief of the bureau or office, and

d) person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee.

Clearly, there are four situations covered.  In the last two mentioned situations, it is immaterial who the appointing or recommending authority is.  To constitute a violation of the law, it suffices that an appointment is extended or issued in favor of a relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of the chief of the bureau or office, or the person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee.

It is true that Dacoycoy did not appoint or recommend his two sons to the positions of driver and utility worker in the Balicuatro College of Arts and Trades. In fact, it was Mr. Jaime Daclag, Head of the Vocational Department of the BCAT, who recommended to DECS Region VIII the appointment of Rito Dacoycoy as driver and appointed Ped Dacoycoy as casual utility worker. However, it was the respondent who recommended Mr. Daclag’s authority to appoint first level positions. It was also the respondent who certified that “funds are available for the proposed appointment of Rito and even rated his performance as “very satisfactory”. Further, Ped, listed him in his job description as his “next higher supervisor.” Unquestionably, Mr. Daclag was a subordinate of respondent Pedro O. Dacoycoy, who was the school administrator. Mr. Daclag recommended the appointment of respondent's two sons and placed them under respondent's immediate supervision serving as driver and utility worker of the school. Both positions are career positions. Clearly he is guilty of nepotism.

Nepotism is one pernicious evil impeding the civil service and the efficiency of its personnel.  In Debulgado, we stressed that “The basic purpose or objective of the prohibition against nepotism also strongly indicates that the prohibition was intended to be a comprehensive one.” “The Court was unwilling to restrict and limit the scope of the prohibition which is textually very broad and comprehensive.” If not within the exceptions, it is a form of corruption that must be nipped in the bud or bated whenever or wherever it raises its ugly head.  As we said in an earlier case “what we need now is not only to punish the wrongdoers or reward the ‘outstanding’ civil servants, but also to plug the hidden gaps and potholes of corruption as well as to insist on strict compliance with existing legal procedures in order to abate any occasion for graft or circumvention of the law.

2. There is no question that respondent Dacoycoy may appeal to the Court of Appeals from the decision of the Civil Service Commission adverse to him. He was the respondent official meted out the penalty of dismissal from the service.  On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the court required the petitioner therein, here respondent Dacoycoy, to implead the Civil Service Commission as public respondent as the government agency tasked with the duty to enforce the constitutional and statutory provisions on the civil service. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Civil Service Commission and held respondent not guilty of nepotism.  Who now may appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court?  Certainly not the respondent, who was declared not guilty of the charge.  Nor the complainant George P. Suan, who was merely a witness for the government. Consequently, the Civil Service Commission has become the party adversely affected by such ruling, which seriously prejudices the civil service system.  Hence, as an aggrieved party, it may appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.

The Court REVIVES and AFFIRMS the resolutions of the Civil Service Commission dated January 28, 1998 and September 30, 1998, dismissing respondent Pedro O. Dacoycoy from the service. (Civil Service Commission vs. Pedro O. Dacoycoy, G.R. No. 135805, April 29, 1999)

read more...

People vs. Sola

The primordial aim and intent of the Constitution must ever be kept in mind. In case of doubt, it should be resolved in favor of a change of venue.

The prosecution must be given an opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the court should resolve the motion for bail. 

Facts:

CFI Negros Occidental issued a search warrant for the search and seizure of the deceased bodies of 7 persons believed in the possession of the accused Pablo Sola in his hacienda at Sta. Isabel, Kabankalan, Negros Occidental. On September 16, 1980 armed with the above warrant, the 332nd PC/INP Company proceeded to the place of Sola. Diggings made in a canefield yielded two common graves containing the 7 bodies. Seven (7) separate complaints for murder were thus filed against Pablo Sola and 18 other persons.  The municipal court found probable cause against the accused and ordered their arrest. However, without giving the prosecution the opportunity to prove that the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong, the court granted them the right to post bail for their temporary release. Pablo Sola and two others have since been released from detention. The witnesses in the murder cases informed the prosecution of their fears that if the trial is held at the CFI Himamaylan which is but 10 kilometers from Kabankalan, their safety could be jeopardized. At least 2 of the accused are official with power and influence in Kabankalan and they have been released on bail. In addition, most of the accused remained at large. There have been reports made to police authorities of threats made on the families of the witnesses.

Issues:

1. Whether or not change of venue is proper

2. Whether or not the bail bond should be cancelled for failure to abide by the basic requirement that the prosecution be heard in a case where the accused is charged with a capital offense, prior to bail being granted.

Held:

Change of venue

Change of venue has become moot and academic with the transfer of the case to Bacolod City. However, the case proceeds with this discussion: To compel the prosecution to proceed to trial in a locality where its witnesses will not be at liberty to reveal what they know is to make a mockery of the judicial process, and to betray the very purpose for which courts have been established. The witnesses in the case are fearful of their lives. They are afraid they would be killed on their way to or from Himamaylan during any of the days of trial. Because of this fear, they may either refuse to testify or testify falsely to save their lives.

Right of bail

The bail bonds must be cancelled and the case remanded to the sala of Executive Judge Alfonso Baguio for such hearing. 

Whether the motion for bail of a defendant who is in custody for a capital offense be resolved in a summary proceeding or in the course of a regular trial, the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the court should resolve the motion for bail. If, as in the criminal case involved in the instant special civil action, the prosecution should be denied such an opportunity, there would be a violation of procedural due process, and the order of the court granting bail should be considered void on that ground. 

Justice, though due to the accused, is due to the accuser also. The concept of fairness must not be strained till it is narrowed to a filament. We are to keep the balance true. This norm which is of the very essence of due process as the embodiment of justice requires that the prosecution be given the opportunity to prove that there is strong evidence of guilt. It does not suffice, as asserted herein, that the questions asked by the municipal judge before bail was granted could be characterized as searching. That fact did not cure an infirmity of a jurisdictional character. (People vs. Sola, G.R. No. L-56158-64 March 17, 1981)

read more...

Constitutional Safeguards to Insure Independence of the Judiciary

The following are the constitutional safeguards to maintain judicial independence:

1) The Supreme Court is a constitutional body and cannot be abolished by mere legislation.

2) The members of the Supreme Court cannot be removed except by impeachment.

3) The Supreme Court cannot be deprived of its minimum jurisdiction prescribed in Section 5, Article X of the Constitution.

4) The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court cannot be increased by law without its advice and concurrence.

5) Appointees to the Judiciary are nominated by the Judicial and Bar Council and are not subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

6)  The Supreme Court has administrative supervision over all lower courts and their personnel.

7) The Supreme Court has exclusive power to discipline Judges of lower courts.

8) The Members of the Judiciary have security of tenure, which cannot be undermined by a law reorganizing the Judiciary.

9)  Members of the Judiciary cannot be designated to any agency  performing quasi-Judicial or administrative functions.

10) The salaries of Members of the Judiciary cannot be decreased during their continuance in office.

11) The Judiciary has fiscal autonomy.

12) The Supreme Court has exclusive power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure.

13) Only the Supreme Court can temporarily assign judges to other stations.

14) It is the Supreme Court who appoints all officials and employees of the Judiciary. (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1995 ed. (pp. 229-31.) Political Law Bar Question 2000

read more...

Appointment to the Judiciary

Sections 7, Article VIII,  1987 Constitution

1. No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty years of age, and must have been for fifteen years or more, a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.

2. The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no person may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the Philippine Bar.

3. A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.

Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.

For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointment within ninety days from the submission of the list.

A. QUALIFICATIONS

1. Members of the Supreme Court

a. Natural-born citizen;

b. At least 40 years old;

c. Have been for 15 years or more, a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines

d. Of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence

2. Members of the Court of Appeals

- same qualifications as those provided for Justice of the Supreme Court

3. Regional Trial Court Judges

a. Natural-born citizen;

b. At least 35 years old;

c. At least 10 years of law practice in the Philippines or holding office requiring admission to the bar as a prerequisite

d. Of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence

4. Metropolitan, Municipal and Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judges

a. Natural-born citizen;

b. At least 30 years old;

c. At least 5 years of law practice in the Philippines or holding office requiring admission to the bar as a prerequisite

d. Of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence

B. PROCEDURE IN APPOINTMENT

The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicialand Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.

For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointment within 90 days from the submission of the list.

read more...

Judicial and Bar Council

Section 8, 1987 Phil. Constitution

1.   A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.

2.  The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a term of four years with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Of the Members first appointed, the representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor of law for three years, the retired Justice for two years, and the representative of the private sector for one year.

3.  The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a record of its proceedings.

4.  The regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as may be determined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget the appropriations for the Council.

5.  The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the judiciary. It may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.

What is the Judicial and Bar Council?

The Judicial and Bar Council of the Philippines is a constitutionally-created body that recommends appointees for vacancies that may arise in the composition of the Supreme Court and other lower courts.

Who are the member of the JBC?

The Constitution provides for the composition of the JBC to include the following:

Ex-Officio Chairman

1. The Chief Justice 

Ex-Officio Members

2.  The Secretary of Justice 

3. A representative of the Congress 

Regular Members

4. A representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines;

5. A professor of law;

6. A retired member of the Supreme Court;

7. A representative from the private sector.

Ex-Officio Secretary

Clerk of Supreme Court

How are the members of the JBC appointed?

Members from the government are automatically members of the JBC by virtue of their office. The regular members would be nominated by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of four years. However, since the terms will be staggered, the first set of members would serve different lengths of service: the representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor of law for three years, the retired Justice for two years, and the representative of the private sector for one year. 

What are the powers/functions of the JBC?

The principal function of the JBC is to recommend appointees to the Judiciary. It may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it.

Who supervises the JBC and takes care of its appropriations?

The Supreme Court supervises the JBC and provides in the annual budget of the Court the appropriations of the JBC.

read more...