Case Summary (G.R. No. 187000)
Procedural Posture and Key Dates
Complaint filed with CSC (Quezon City) on November 29, 1995. Formal charge issued March 5, 1996. CSC resolution finding guilt for nepotism and dismissing respondent promulgated January 28, 1997; motion for reconsideration denied May 20, 1997. Court of Appeals reversed on July 29, 1998. The CSC appealed to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court decision under review was rendered April 29, 1999. The case proceeded under the 1987 Constitution.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Principal statutory sources relied upon in the decision: Section 59, Executive Order No. 292 (Revised Administrative Code, Book V) defining and prohibiting nepotism; Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Law) provisions on appeals and the scope of disciplinary review. The Court applied the 1987 Constitution as the governing constitutional framework, particularly the CSC’s constitutional oversight role over the civil service.
Summary of Factual Findings Relevant to Nepotism
Respondent did not personally sign the appointing orders for his two sons (Rito and Ped Dacoycoy). Rito was appointed driver by Atty. Victorino B. Tirol II (DECS Regional Director III) on July 1, 1992; Ped was appointed casual utility worker by Jaime Daclag on January 3, 1993. Respondent certified availability of funds for Rito’s appointment, rated Rito’s performance “very satisfactory,” and Ped listed respondent as his next higher supervisor in his position description form. Respondent authorized Mr. Daclag to recommend appointments of first‑level employees and approved that such positions would be under Daclag’s immediate supervision, yet the evidence showed the sons were placed under respondent’s immediate supervision.
Legal Definition and Scope of Nepotism
Section 59 (EO No. 292) prohibits appointments in favor of relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of: (a) the appointing authority, (b) the recommending authority, (c) the chief of the bureau or office, or (d) the person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee. The prohibition is therefore triggered not only when the appointing or recommending authority is related to the appointee, but also when the chief of the office or the immediate supervisor is related. The statutory scheme thus contemplates four distinct circumstances in which nepotism occurs; in two of those (chief of office and immediate supervisor), who actually executed the appointment is immaterial.
Application of Nepotism Law to the Facts
Although respondent did not formally appoint or directly recommend his sons, the Court found circumvention of the nepotism ban: respondent authorized a subordinate (Daclag) to recommend first‑level appointments, was involved in certifying funds and assessing performance of his son, and the sons were placed under his immediate supervision. The “unseen but obvious hand” test was applied: where a superior uses a subordinate to effect an appointment that benefits a relative and places that relative under the superior’s immediate supervision, the superior is accountable under the nepotism prohibition. The Court concluded these facts established respondent’s guilt for nepotism.
Holding on Guilt and Penalty
The Supreme Court held that respondent Pedro O. Dacoycoy was guilty of nepotism in two counts for the appointment of his two sons as driver and utility worker under his immediate supervision. The penalty of dismissal previously imposed by the CSC was revived and affirmed. The Court granted the CSC’s petition and reversed the Court of Appeals decision that had exonerated respondent.
Issue of Who May Appeal: Majority Ruling and Rationale
The majority addressed whether the Civil Service Commission, after suffering an adverse appellate ruling by the Court of Appeals that exonerated a respondent, may itself appeal that decision to the Supreme Court. The Court concluded that the CSC is an aggrieved party when a ruling seriously prejudices the civil service system and thus may appeal. The majority expressly overruled earlier jurisprudence that narrowly interpreted “party adversely affected” to mean only the individual respondent employee, and that disallowed appeals by the government in cases where the respondent was exonerated.
Overruled Precedent and Policy Rationale
The majority overruled prior decisions that prevented the government (including the CSC) from appealing exonerative rulings in administrative disciplinary cases—cases cited include Paredes v. Civil Service Commission, Mendez v. CSC, Magpale v. CSC, Navarro v. CSC, and Del Castillo v. CSC. The majority emphasized the broad public interest in policing nepotism and the comprehensive scope of Section 59, arguing that the CSC, as the central personnel agency and guardian of merit and fitness, may be adversely affected by appellate rulings that undermine the civil service and therefore has standing to seek review.
Treatment of Debulgado and Scope of Nepotism Prohibition
The Court rejected the Court of Appeals’ reliance on Debulgado to limit liability to the appointing or recommending authority, noting that Debulgado in fact affirms a broad and comprehensive construction of Section 59. The majority reiterated that nepotism is a pernicious practice to be strictly policed and that the statutory ban is broad unless a clear exception applies.
Dissent and Concurring Opinions — Overview (Melo, Romero, Puno)
- Justice Melo (concurring in result; dissenting on appealability): Agreed with the guilt and outcome but dissented from the majority’s holding that the CSC may appeal exonerative decisions. He argued that longstanding precedent barring government appeals in such circumstances should remain, that P.D. No. 807’s appeal scheme restricts appeals to t
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 187000)
Case Caption and Procedural Posture
- En banc decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines in G.R. No. 135805, promulgated April 29, 1999 (366 Phil. 86).
- Petition by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) seeking review by certiorari of a Court of Appeals decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 44711) that reversed the CSC’s resolution dismissing respondent Pedro O. Dacoycoy for nepotism.
- Procedural chronology:
- Complaint filed with CSC (Quezon City) on November 29, 1995 by George P. Suan (Citizens Crime Watch Vice-President, Allen Chapter, Northern Samar).
- Fact-finding investigation; Civil Service Regional Office No. 8 found a prima facie case; formal charge issued March 5, 1996.
- CSC formal investigation; Resolution No. 970684 dated January 28, 1997: respondent acquitted of habitual drunkenness and misconduct but found guilty on two counts of nepotism and dismissed from service.
- Motion for reconsideration filed February 25, 1997 and denied by CSC Resolution No. 972881 dated May 20, 1997.
- Special civil action for certiorari with preliminary injunction filed by respondent in the Court of Appeals on July 18, 1997; CA promulgated decision on July 29, 1998 reversing CSC and declaring respondent not guilty of nepotism.
- Supreme Court required respondent to comment (November 17, 1998); respondent filed comment (December 11, 1998).
- Supreme Court granted review, reversed Court of Appeals, and affirmed CSC’s resolutions dismissing respondent; no costs.
Statement of Facts
- Complainant: George P. Suan (Citizens Crime Watch Vice‑President, Allen Chapter).
- Respondent: Pedro O. Dacoycoy, Vocational School Administrator, Balicuatro College of Arts and Trades (BCAT), Allen, Northern Samar.
- Two subject employees and relatives of respondent:
- Rito Dacoycoy — appointed driver on July 1, 1992 by Atty. Victorino B. Tirol II, Director III, DECS Regional Office VIII, Palo, Leyte.
- Ped (Ped Dacoycoy) — appointed casual utility worker on January 3, 1993 by Mr. Jaime Daclag, Head of the Vocational Department, BCAT.
- Administrative structure and delegation:
- Mr. Jaime Daclag was Head of the Vocational Department and a subordinate of respondent Dacoycoy.
- Respondent recommended that Mr. Daclag be authorized to recommend appointments to first-level positions (watchmen, security guards, drivers, utility workers, casuals) for short durations (three to six months); this recommendation was approved by DECS Regional Director Eladio C. Dioko, with the provision that such positions shall be under Mr. Daclag’s immediate supervision.
- Actions by respondent relevant to nepotism findings:
- Respondent certified that “funds are available for the proposed appointment of Rito Dacoycoy.”
- Respondent rated Rito’s performance as “very satisfactory.”
- Ped’s position description form stated that his father (respondent) was “his next higher supervisor.”
- Positions filled (driver and utility worker) were career positions (not temporary or exempt under exceptions listed in Section 59).
Administrative Investigation and CSC Resolution
- After fact-finding and formal charge, CSC conducted a formal investigation.
- CSC findings (Resolution No. 970684, January 28, 1997):
- No substantial evidence for habitual drunkenness and misconduct charges.
- Found respondent guilty of nepotism on two counts for the appointment and assignment of his sons Rito and Ped under his immediate supervision and control.
- Penalty imposed: dismissal from the service.
- Motion for reconsideration by respondent (Feb 25, 1997) denied by CSC (Resolution No. 972881, May 20, 1997).
Court of Appeals Decision
- Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 44711) promulgated decision on July 29, 1998.
- Holding of the Court of Appeals:
- Reversed and set aside CSC’s decision.
- Ruled that respondent did not appoint or recommend his two sons and thus was not guilty of nepotism.
- Articulated principle relied upon: “the person who recommends or appoints who should be sanctioned, as it is he who performs the prohibited act.”
- CA required respondent to implead the Civil Service Commission as public respondent during litigation.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Primary legal issue: the scope and application of the ban on nepotism under Section 59 of Executive Order No. 292 (Revised Administrative Code) and whether respondent Dacoycoy was guilty of nepotism.
- Ancillary but crucial issue: who may appeal an appellate court decision in an administrative civil service disciplinary case — specifically whether the Civil Service Commission, as the agency that prosecuted and imposed administrative sanction originally, is an aggrieved party entitled to appeal when a court of appeals exonerates the respondent.
- Whether existing jurisprudence barring review of exonerative decisions should be adhered to or overruled in the circumstances of this case.
Governing Law and Definitions Cited
- Section 59, Executive Order No. 292 (dated July 25, 1987) — Nepotism:
- Prohibition: all appointments to national, provincial, city and municipal governments or 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 prohibited.
- Definition of “relative”: those related within the third civil degree either of consanguinity or affinity.
- Exemptions: (a) persons employed in a confidential capacity, (b) teachers, (c) physicians, and (d) members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines; provided that full report of such appointment be made to the Commission.
- Procedural rules and statutes referenced:
- Rule 43, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; R.A. No. 7902 (noted as authority for appeals by respondent to Court of Appeals).
- Rule 45, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (cited re: appeal to Supreme Court).
- Article IX (B), Constitution and Section 12, par. 1, Book V, Executive Order No. 292 — Civil Service Commission’s constitutional and statutory duties.
- Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Law) and its Sections 37 and 39 (referred to extensively in discussing appellate standing in prior jurisprudence and dissenting analyses).
Majority Holding and Disposition
- Supreme Court (Ponente: Justice Pardo) granted the CSC’s petition for certiorari and reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 44711).
- The Court revived and affirmed CSC’s resolutions dated January 28, 1998 and September 30, 1998 (noting dates in opinion), dismissing respondent Pedro O. Dacoycoy from the service.
- No costs assessed.
Majority Reasoning on Nepotism and Application to Facts
- Interpretation of Section 59:
- Nepotism covers four distinct situations where an appointment is made in favor of a relative within the third civil degree of: (a) appointing authority, (b) recommending authority, (c) the chief of the bureau or office, or (d) person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee.
- In the last two situations (chief of bureau/office and person exercising immediate supervision), it is immaterial who the appointing or recommending authority is — it suffices that an appointment is extended to a relative within the third civil degree of those officials.
- Application to respondent:
- Respondent was Vocational School Administrator and the “person exercising immediate supervision” over the two appointees (sons).
- Although respondent did not himself sign the appointing instruments or physically recommend the appointments, the evidence demonstrated circumvention:
- Respondent recommended and obtained authority for Mr. Jaime Daclag (a subordinate) to recommend first-level positions and placed the condition that such positions be under Daclag’s immediate supervision; in practice, Mr. Daclag recommended the sons and they were placed under respondent’s immediate supervision.
- Respondent certified availability of funds for Rito’s appointment and rated Rito’s performance “very satisfactory.”
- Ped’s position description form listed respondent as “his next higher supervisor.”
- The “unseen but obvious hand” of respondent was found to have been behind