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)
0
Comments
