Case Digest (G.R. No. 242005)
Facts:
The case involves Dr. Ramil A. Bagaoisan, who served as the Chief of Hospital I at the Cortes Municipal Hospital in Cortes, Surigao del Sur. On May 26, 2011, he issued Office Memorandum Order No. 012, which appointed his wife, Nelita L. Bagaoisan, as the Administrative Officer and Liaison Officer of the hospital, in addition to her existing role as Nutritionist-Dietician I. Subsequently, on November 5, 2013, he issued another memorandum, Office Memorandum Order No. 028, designating her to function as part of the "Internal Control Unit." An anonymous complaint was filed against him, alleging nepotism due to these designations. The Field Investigation Unit of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao subsequently charged him with violating Section 59 of Executive Order No. 292 and Grave Misconduct. The Ombudsman found substantial evidence against him, concluding that his actions constituted a flagrant disregard for the nepotism prohibition, resulting in a decisi...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 242005)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
- Petitioner Ramil A. Bagaoisan, M.D., was the Chief of Hospital I of the Cortes Municipal Hospital in Cortes, Surigao del Sur.
Designation of Petitioner's Wife:
- On May 26, 2011, petitioner issued Office Memorandum Order No. 012, series of 2011, designating his wife, Nelita L. Bagaoisan, as Administrative Officer and Liaison Officer of the Cortes Municipal Hospital, in addition to her role as Nutritionist-Dietician I.
- On November 5, 2013, petitioner issued Office Memorandum Order No. 028, series of 2013, designating Nelita as "Internal Control Unit" in addition to her previous roles.
Complaint and Allegations:
- An anonymous complaint was filed alleging nepotism, as petitioner designated his wife to multiple roles within the hospital.
- The complaint charged petitioner with violation of Section 59, Chapter 8, in relation to Section 67, Chapter 10, Title I-A, Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) and Grave Misconduct.
Petitioner's Defense:
- Petitioner argued that the rule against nepotism does not apply to designations, only to appointments.
- He claimed that the positions to which he designated his wife were non-plantilla positions and that she did not receive additional compensation.
Issue:
The primary issue before the Court was whether the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in upholding the Ombudsman's finding that petitioner was guilty of Grave Misconduct and in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA's decision. The Court held that petitioner's actions constituted Grave Misconduct and that the penalty of dismissal from service was appropriate.
Ratio:
Nepotism Under EO 292:
- Section 59 of EO 292 prohibits appointments in favor of relatives within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity of the appointing authority.
- The prohibition applies to all appointments, whether original or promotional, and includes designations.
Designation vs. Appointment:
- The Court ruled that there is no distinction between appointment and designation for the purpose of determining nepotism.
- Designation involves the naming of a person to a specified public office, even if temporary, and is considered an appointment for the purpose of the nepotism rule.
Application to the Case:
- Petitioner designated his wife to multiple roles within the hospital, which violated the prohibition against nepotism.
- The fact that the positions were non-plantilla or that Nelita did not receive additional compensation was immaterial. The act of designating a relative within the prohibited degree is sufficient to constitute nepotism.
Grave Misconduct:
- Petitioner's actions demonstrated a willful intent to violate the law and disregard established rules, constituting Grave Misconduct.
- The penalty of dismissal from service, including accessory penalties, was justified under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS).
Public Policy:
- The prohibition against nepotism is a fundamental public policy aimed at ensuring objectivity in public service.
- The Court emphasized that the rule is comprehensive and should not be diluted by introducing qualifications or distinctions.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Ombudsman's and CA's rulings, finding petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct for violating the prohibition against nepotism. The penalty of dismissal from service was affirmed.