CASE 2014-0041: CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PETITIONER,- versus – MARICELLE M. CORTES, Respondent. (G.R. No. 200103, 23 APRIL 2014, ABAD J.) SUBJECT/S: NEPOTISM (BRIEF TITLE: CIVIL SERVICE VS CORTES)
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 11, 2011 and Resolution dated January 10, 2012 of the Comi of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 115380 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Resolution of the Civil Service Commission dated March 2, 2010 affirming the CSC-NCR Decision dated September 30, 2008 invalidating the appointment of respondent Maricelle M. Cortes for being nepotistic is hereby REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
WHAT IS NEPOTISM?
NEPOTISM IS DEFINED IN SECTION 59 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AS AN APPOINTMENT ISSUED IN FAVOR OF A RELATIVE WITHIN THE THIRD CIVIL DEGREE OF CONSANGUINITY OR AFFINITY OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
(1) APPOINTING AUTHORITY;
(2) RECOMMENDING AUTHORITY;
(3) CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OR OFFICE; AND
(4) PERSON EXERCISING IMMEDIATE SUPERVISION OVER THE APPOINTEE.
ARE THERE EXCEPTIONS?
YES, AS FOLLOWS:
(1) PERSONS EMPLOYED IN A CONFIDENTIAL CAPACITY;
(2) TEACHERS;
(3) PHYSICIANS; AND
(4) MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES.
CORTEZ WAS APPOINTED AT CHR AS INFORMATION OFFICER. IS HER APPOINTMENT COVERED BY THE PROHIBITION ON NEPOTISM?
YES. SHE IS THE DAUGHTER OF CHR COMMISSIONER MALLARI. AND SHE IS NOT COVERED BY THE EXCEPTIONS.
RESPONDENT CORTES ARGUES THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY REFERRED TO IN SECTION 59 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IS THE COMMISSION EN BANC AND NOT THE INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS WHO COMPOSE IT. IS HER ARGUMENT CORRECT?
NO. TO RULE THAT THE PROHIBITION APPLIES ONLY TO THE COMMISSION, AND NOT TO THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS WHO COMPOSE IT, WILL RENDER THE PROHIBITION MEANINGLESS. APPARENTLY, THE COMMISSION EN BANC, WHICH IS A BODY CREATED BY FICTION OF LAW, CAN NEVER HAVE RELATIVES TO SPEAK OF.
FURTHER, IF ACTS THAT CANNOT BE LEGALLY DONE DIRECTLY CAN BE DONE INDIRECTLY, THEN ALL LAWS WOULD BE ILLUSORY.
BUT COMMISSIONER MALLARI ABSTAINED FROM VOTING ON HER APPOINTMENT. DID HIS ABSENTION NOT CURE THE NEPOTISTIC CHARACTER OF THE APPOINTMENT?
NO BECAUSE THE EVIL SOUGHT TO BE AVOIDED BY THE PROHIBITION STILL EXISTS. HIS MERE PRESENCE DURING THE DELIBERATION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF IO V CREATED AN IMPRESSION OF INFLUENCE AND CAST DOUBT ON THE IMPARTIALITY AND NEUTRALITY OF THE COMMISSION EN BANC.
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 