NEPOTISM

All appointments extended to relatives within the third (3rd) degree of the following persons are prohibited, namely:

1. Appointing Authority;2. Recommending Authority;3. Chief of Bureau or Office; and4. Person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee.

Moreover, in the case of Debulgado vs. CSC, 237 SCRA 184, the Supreme Court had the occasion to rule on the coverage and purpose of the prohibition on nepotism, as follows:

1. The original appointment of a civil service employee and all subsequent personnel actions undertaken by or in respect of that employee must comply with the prohibition against nepotism.

2. The purpose of the prohibition against nepotism is to ensure that all appointments and other personnel actions in the civil service should be based on merit and fitness and should never depend on how close or intimate an appointee to the appointing power (purpose)

3. The prohibition against nepotism applies quite without regard to the actual merit of the proposed appointee and to the good intentions of the appointing or recommending authority (on argument of good intentions).

4. The purpose of the prohibition against nepotism is precisely to take out of the discretion of the appointing or recommending authority the matter of appointing or recommending for appointment a relative (Purpose)

NUTSHELL:

1. The purpose or objective of the prohibition against nepotism strongly indicates that the prohibition was intended to be a comprehensive one.

2. It covers not only original appointments but also subsequent personnel actions of an employee such as promotion, transfer, re-employment and the like.

The prohibition against nepotism covers promotions

Dacoycoy Ruling

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. By this ruling, we now expressly abandon and overrule extant jurisprudence that “the phrase ‘party adversely affected by the decision’ refers to the government employee against whom the administrative case is filed for the purpose of disciplinary action which may take the form of suspension, demotion in rank or salary, transfer, removal or dismissal from office” and not included are “cases where the penalty imposed is suspension for not more then thirty (30) days or fine in an amount not exceeding thirty days salary” or “when the respondent is exonerated of the charges, there is no occasion for appeal.” In other words, we overrule prior decisions holding that the Civil Service Law “does not contemplate a review of decisions exonerating officers or employees from administrative charges” enunciated in Paredes v. Civil Service Commission;

1. The decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the decision of the CSC in an administrative case may be appealed by –

a. The complainant being adversely affected by the decision b. CSC, its decision being reversed by CAc. Respondent exonerated by the charges