Csc v Dacoycoy

8/18/2019 Csc v Dacoycoy

1/16

SYNOPSIS

George P. Suan, Vice-President of Citizens Crime Watch, Allen Chapter, Northern

Samar, filed with petitioner Ciil Serice Commission !C S C" a complaint against

respondent, the Vocational School Administrator of #alicuatro College of Arts and

$rade, Allen, Northern Samar, for ha%itual drun&enness, misconduct and nepotism.

After inestigation, the C S C found respondent guilt' onl' of nepotism on two counts

as a result of the appointment of his two sons as drier and utilit' wor&er of the school

and their assignment under respondents immediate superision and control.

Conse(uentl', the C S C dismissed respondent from the serice. )espondent filed a

special ciil action for certiorari with preliminar' in*unction %efore the Court of

Appeals. $he Court of Appeals reersed and set aside the decision of the C S C ruling

that respondent did not appoint or recommend his two sons, hence, he was not guilt'of nepotism. $he appellate court further ruled that it is the person who recommends

or appoints who should %e sanctioned, as it is he who performs the prohi%ited act.

+ence, this appeal.

$he Supreme Court affirmed the resolutions of the C S C finding respondent

guilt' of nepotism and meting out the penalt' if dismissal from the serice. $o

constitute a iolation of the law on nepotism, it is immaterial who the appointing or

recommending authorit' is. f suffices that an appointment is etended or issued in

faor of a relatie within the third degree of consanguinit' or affinit' of the chief of the %ureau or office, or the person eercising immediate superision oer the

appointee. t is true that it was the +ead of the Vocational epartment of the School

who recommended the appointment of respondents two sons and placed them under

respondents immediate superision sering as drier and utilit' wor&er of the school.

+oweer, the +ead of the Vocational epartment was a su%ordinate of respondent and

it was the latter who authorized the former to recommend the appointment of first

leel emplo'ees such as, among others, driers and utilit' wor&ers, under his

immediate superision. $hus, the unseen hand of respondent was o%iousl' %ehind

the appointing or recommending authorit' in the appointment of his two sons.

$he Supreme Court li&ewise ruled that petitioner has %ecome the part' adersel'

affected %' the ruling of the Court of Appeals in the instant case. +ence, as an

aggrieed part', petitioner ma' appeal the decision of the appellate court to the

Supreme Court. $he Court oerruled prior decisions holding that the Ciil Serice


2/16

/aw does not contemplate a reiew of decisions eonerating officers or emplo'ees

from administratie charges.

SYLLABUS

1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; CIVIL SERVICE LAW; EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 292; SECTION 59

THEREOF; NEPOTISM; DEFINED. -- 0nder the definition of nepotism, one is guilt' of nepotism if an

appointment is issued in faor of a relatie within the third ciil degree of consanguinit' or affinit' of an' of

the following1 a" appointing authorit'2 %" recommending authorit'2 c" chief of the %ureau or office, and d"

person eercising immediate superision oer the appointee. Clearl', there are four situations coered. n the

last two mentioned situations, it is immaterial who the appointing or recommending authorit' is. $o constitute

a iolation of the law, it suffices that an appointment is etended or issued in faor of a relatie within the third

ciil degree of consanguinit' or affinit' of the chief of the %ureau or office, or the person eercising immediate

superision oer the appointee.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RESPONDENT FOUND GUILTY THEREOF IN CASE AT BAR. -- We agree with

the Ciil Serice Commission that respondent Pedro 3. aco'co' was guilt' of nepotism and correctl' metedout the penalt' of dismissal from the serice. )espondent aco'co' is the Vocational School Administrator,

#alicuatro College of Arts and $rades, Allen, Northern Samar. t is true that he did not appoint or recommend

his two sons to the positions of drier and utilit' wor&er in the #alicuatro College of Arts and $rades. n fact,

it was 4r. 5aime aclag, +ead of the Vocational epartment of the # C A $, who recommended the

appointment of )ito. 4r. aclag6s authorit' to recommend the appointment of first leel positions such as

watchmen, securit' guards, driers, utilit' wor&ers, and casuals and emergenc' la%orers for short durations of

three to si months was recommended %' respondent aco'co' and approed %' 7 C S )egional irector

7ladio C. io&o, with the proision that such positions shall %e under 4r. aclags immediate superision. 3n

5ul' 8, 899:, Att'. Victorino #. $irol , irector , 7 C S )egional 3ffice V, Palo, /e'te, appointed )ito

aco'co' drier of the school. 3n 5anuar' ;, 899;, 4r. aclag also appointed Ped aco'co' casual utilit'

wor&er. +oweer, it was respondent aco'co' who certified that funds are aaila%le for the proposed

appointment of )ito aco'co' and een rated his performance as er' satisfactor'. 3n the other hand, his son

Ped stated in his position description form that his father was his net higher superisor. $he circumention of

the %an on nepotism is (uite o%ious. 0n(uestiona%l', 4r. aclag was a su%ordinate of respondent Pedro 3.

aco'co', who was the school administrator. +e authorized 4r. aclag to recommend the appointment of

first leel emplo'ees under his immediate superision. $hen 4r. aclag recommended the appointment of

respondents two sons and placed them under respondents immediate superision sering as drier and utilit'

wor&er of the school. #oth positions are career positions. $o our mind, the unseen %ut o%ious hand of

respondent aco'co' was %ehind the appointing or recommending authorit' in the appointment of his two

sons. Clearl', he is guilt' of nepotism.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MAY APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE

COURT OF APPEALS EXONERATING PUBLIC OFFICIAL FROM CHARGES THEREOF. -- $heCourt of Appeals reersed the decision of the Ciil Serice Commission and held respondent not guilt' of

nepotism. Who now ma' appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court< Certainl' not the

respondent, who was declared not guilt' of the charge. Nor the complainant George P. Suan, who was merel'

a witness for the goernment. Conse(uentl', the Ciil Serice Commission has %ecome the part' adersel'

affected %' such ruling, which seriousl' pre*udices the ciil serice s'stem. +ence, as an aggrieed part', it

ma' appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. #' this ruling, we now epressl'

a%andon and oerrule etant *urisprudence that the phrase part' adersel' affected %' the decision refers to the


3/16

goernment emplo'ee against whom the administratie case is filed for the purpose of disciplinar' action

which ma' ta&e the form of suspension, demotion in ran& or salar', transfer, remoal or dismissal from office

and not included are cases where the penalt' imposed is suspension for not more then thirt' !;=" da's or fine in

an amount not eceeding thirt' da's salar' or when the respondent is eonerated of the charges, there is no

occasion for appeal. n other words, we oerrule prior decisions holding that the Ciil Serice /aw does not

contemplate a reiew of decisions eonerating officers or emplo'ees from administratie charges enunciated

in Paredes v. Civil Service Commission2 and other cases cited2 and more recentl' Del Castillo v. Civil Service

Commission.

. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RULING IN DEBULGADO CASE !23" SCRA 1#$ NOT APPLICABLE IN CASE

AT BAR. -- $he Court of Appeals reliance on Debulgado vs. Civil Service Commission, to support its ruling is

misplaced. $he issues in e%ulgado are whether a promotional appointment is coered %' the prohi%ition

against nepotism or the prohi%ition applies onl' to original appointments to the ciil serice, and whether the

Commission had grael' a%used its discretion in recalling and disappoing the promotional appointment gien

to petitioner after the Commission had earlier approed that appointment. e%ulgado neer een impliedl'

limited the coerage of the %an on nepotism to onl' the appointing or recommending authorit' for appointing a

relatie. Precisel', in e%ulgado, the Court emphasized that Section >9 means eactl' what it sa's in plain and

ordinar' language1 $he pu%lic polic' em%odied in Section >9 is clearl' fundamental in importance, andthe Court had neither authorit' nor inclination to dilute that important pu%lic polic' %' introducing a

(ualification here or a distinction there. Nepotism is one pernicious eil impeding the ciil serice and the

efficienc' of its personnel. n e%ulgado, we stressed that ?$@he %asic purpose or o%*ectie of the prohi%ition

against nepotism also strongl' indicates that the prohi%ition was intended to %e a comprehensie one. $he

Court was unwilling to restrict and limit the scope of the prohi%ition which is tetuall' er' %road and

comprehensie. f not within the eceptions, it is a form of corruption that must %e nipped in the %ud or a%ated

wheneer or whereer it raises its ugl' head. As we said in an earlier case what we need now is not onl' to

punish the wrongdoers or reward the outstanding ciil serants, %ut also to plug the hidden gaps and potholes

of corruption as well as to insist on strict compliance with eisting legal procedures in order to a%ate an'

occasion for graft or circumention of the law.

PUNO% J., concurring opinion:

1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; CIVIL SERVICE LAW; NEPOTISM; TAXPAYER HAS THE STANDING TO

BRING SUIT TO VOID NEPOTIC ACTS. -- t is %e'ond argument that nepotism is prohi%ited %' our ciil

serice law for it %reeds inefficienc', if not corruption, in goernment serice. $he critical (uestion, therefore,

is1 who has the standing to preent the iolation of this law and protect pu%lic interest< su%mit that a

tapa'er has the standing to %ring suit to oid nepotic acts for he has an interest that appointments in the ciil

serice shall %e made onl' according to merit and fitness . A tapa'er has a right to good goernment and

good goernment cannot result from appointments determined %' %loodlines. $he Ciil Serice /aw itself

recognizes that there are offenses which can %e the su%*ect of a complaint %' an' priate citizen. $hus, Section

; of the law allows an' private citizen to file a complaint against a goernment official or emplo'ee directl'

with the Commission. Section ;B also recognizes that administratie proceedings ma' %e commenced againsta su%ordinate officer or emplo'ee %' the head of the department or office of e(uialent ran&, or head of local

goernment or chiefs of agencies, or regional directors or upon sworn written complaint of any other

persons. The general rule is that one who has a right to be heard has standing to seek review of any ruling

adverse to him. +ence, if a priate citizen has the right to file an administratie complaint, he must also hae

the right to appeal a dismissal of his complaint, unless the law clearly precludes his right of appeal for

indubitable policy reasons. A contrar' rule will diminish the alue of the right to complain. $he cases

of Paredes, endez and agpale do not gie an' polic' reason wh' the dismissal of a charge of nepotism

cannot %e appealed. $he' merel' resort to doubtful inferences in *ustif'ing the %ar to appeals. Such an


4/16

approach goes against the rule that preclusion of *udicial reiew of administratie action . . . is not lightl' to %e

inferred.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ERRONEOUS DECISION ALLOWING THEREOF CANNOT BE GIVEN IMMUNITY

FROM &UDICIAL REVIEW. -- !n truth, the doctrine barring appeal is not categorically sanctioned by the

Civil Service "aw. or what the law declares as final are decisions of heads of agencies inoling suspension

for not more than thirt' !;=" da's or fine in an amount not eceeding thirt' !;=" da's salar'. #ut there is a

clear polic' reason for declaring these decisions final. $hese decisions inole minor offenses. $he' are

numerous for the' are the usual offenses committed %' goernment officials and emplo'ees. $o allow their

multiple leel appeal will dou%tless oer%urden the (uasi-*udicial machiner' of our administratie s'stem and

defeat the epectation of fast and efficient action from these administraie agencies. #epotism, however, is not

a petty offense. !ts deleterious effect on government cannot be over$emphasized. %nd it is a stubborn evil.

The ob&ective should be to eliminate nepotic acts, hence, erroneous decisions allowing nepotism cannot be

given immunity from review, especially &udicial review. t is thus non se'uitur to contend that since some

decisions eonerating pu%lic officials from minor offenses can not %e appealed, ergo, een a decision

ac(uitting a goernment official from a ma&or offense li&e nepotism cannot also %e appealed.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; DOCTRINE BARRING APPEAL FROM DECISION EXONERATING PUBLICOFFICIALS FROM CHARGES THEREOF% CANNOT BE &USTIFIED BY THE PROVISION

LIMITING THE APPELLATE &URISDICTION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. -- $he

doctrine %arring appeal cannot %e *ustified %' the proision limiting the *urisdiction of the Ciil Serice

Commission to reiew decisions inoling1 !8" suspension for more than thirt' !;=" da's2 !:" fine in an amount

eceeding thirt' !;=" da's salar'2 !;" demotion in ran& or salar'2 and !D" transfer, remoal or dismissal from

office. Again, there is nothing in this proision indicating legislatie intent to %ar appeal from decisions

eonerating a goernment official or emplo'ee from nepotism. Statutor' preclusion of appeals is the eception

rather than the rule, for as stressed %' 4r. 5ustice ouglas, tolerance of *udicial reiew has %een more and

more the rule against the claim of administratie finalit'. Eet the cases of Paredes, 4endez and 4agpale

precisel' %arred all appeals despite lac& of an eplicit, positie proision in the Ciil Serice /aw.

. ID.; ID.; ID.; SUPREME COURT HAS &URISDICTION TO REVIEW DECISION EXONERATING

PUBLIC OFFICIALS FROM CHARGES THEREOF. -- $he case at %ar inoles the right of a part'

adersel' affected to resort to &udicial review. $his case does not inole the appellate *urisdiction of the Ciil

Serice Commission, i.e., whether or not it has the power to reiew a decision eonerating a goernment

official from a charge of nepotism. $he facts show that it was the Ciil Serice Commission that at the first

instance found aco'co' guilt' of nepotism. t was aco'co' who appealed the decision of the Ciil Serice

Commission to our regular court, more eactl', the Court of Appeals pursuant to the )ules of Court. As

aco'co' onl' impleaded Suan as respondent, the Court of Appeals ordered that the Ciil Serice Commission

should also %e impleaded as part'-respondent. $he Court of Appeals then reersed the Commission as it

cleared aco'co' from the charge of nepotism. $he (uestion therefore is whether or not this Court is

precluded from reiewing the decision of the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari under )ule D>.

Again, su%mit that this Court has *urisdiction to entertain this reiew. ndeed, under the Constitution, the *urisdiction of this Court has een %een epanded to determine whether or not there has %een a grae a%use of

discretion amounting to lac& or ecess of *urisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of

government . $he (uestion is not our lac& of *urisdiction %ut the prudential eercise of power.

n certiorari cases alleging grae a%use of discretion, our gien tas& is to determine how much is too much of

an a%use.


5/16

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MAY APPEAL FROM DECISION EXONERATING

PUBLIC OFFICIALS FROM CHARGES THEREOF. -- $o m' mind, it is also of de minimis importance

that the petition to this Court was filed %' the Ciil Serice Commission. $he records will reeal that Suan, the

original complainant, wrote to the Ciil Serice Commission urging it to ma&e the appeal ostensi%l' for lac& of

means. #ut een without Suan, ! submit that the nature of the issue in the case at bar and its impact on the

effectiveness of government give the Civil Service Commission the standing to pursue this appeal. $he issue in

the case at %ar is %asicall' a legal one, i.e., the proper interpretation of who can %e conicted of nepotism, and

undou%tedl', this Court has the authoritatie sa' on how to interpret laws. Administratie agencies hae

alwa's conceded that the final interpretation of laws %elongs to regular courts. And the issue has %road

implications on the merit and fitness philosoph' of our ciil serice s'stem. 0nder Sec. ;, Article F !#" of

our Constitution, it is the Ciil Serice Commission that has oersight of our ciil serice s'stem. t is thus the

part' %etter e(uipped to argue the dierse dimensions of the issue. t is also the most affected, for it has the

dut' not to stand still when nepotic practices threaten the principle of meritrocac' in our goernment. t seems

to me self eident that this t'pe of in*ur' to pu%lic interest can %est %e indicated %' the Commission and not

%' a priate person.

'. ID.; ID.; ID.; DOCTRINE OF NON-REVIEWABILITY OF DECISIONS EXONERATING

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS FROM CHARGES THEREOF WEA(ENS &UDICIARY)S CHEC(INGPOWER. -- $here are other disturbing implications if we do not *un& the doctrine of non-reiewa%ilit' of

decisions eonerating goernment officials from charges of nepotism. or one, the doctrine undul' faors

officials charged with nepotism, for while we allow further reiew of their coniction, we disallow reiew of

their eoneration, regardless of the errors. $his distorted rule contraenes our distaste against nepotism, a

practice whose continuance can fatall' erode faith in goernment. or another, perpetuating a nepotic act, an

eil that should %e etirpated whereer found, can neer %e the intent of our legislators who crafted our Ciil

Serice /aw. (or still another, completely cutting off access to &udicial review goes against the spirit of the

)*+ Constitution e-panding the &urisdiction of this Court. Putting up borders of non$reviewability weakens

the &udiciarys checking power. !ndeed, shielding abusive administrative actions and decisions from &udicial

oversight will ultimately erode the rule of law. As 5ustice #randeis opined, supremac' of law demands that

there shall %e an opportunit' to hae some court decide whether an erroneous rule of law was applied and

whether the proceeding in which facts were ad*udicated was conducted regularl'.

MELO% J., dissenting and concurring opinion*

1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; CIVIL SERVICE LAW; DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE A REVIEW OF

DECISION EXONERATING OFFICIAL AND EMPLOYEE FROM ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE

INVOLVING NEPOTISM. -- Although completel' agree with the result and li&ewise with the wisdom in

which the issues relating to nepotism are threshed out in the ma*orit' opinion, do not agree with the ma*orit'

opinion stating that the Ciil Serice Commission ma' appeal a *udgment of eoneration in an administratie

case inoling nepotism. And 4r. 5ustice Puno would go further %' allowing een a priate complainant - and

%' implication, a complainant office, to appeal a decision eonerating or a%soling a ciil serice emplo'ee of

charges against, or een imposing a penalt' upon him. $his totall' contraenes our well-settled rulingin Paredes vs. Civil Service Commission !89: S C ) A BD ?899=@", faithfull' and consistentl' reiterated %' the

Court n /anc in endez vs. Civil Service Commission !:=D S C ) A 9> ?8998@"2 and other cases cited"2 that,

the Philippine Ciil Serice /aw does not contemplate a reiew of decisions eonerating officers and

emplo'ees from administratie charges. $he Court of Appeals eonerated respondent aco'co' of the charge

of nepotism. rom such aderse decision, the Ciil Serice Commission, through its 3ffice for /egal Affairs,

interposed the present appeal %' wa' of a petition for reiew oncertiorari under )ule D> of the )ules of Court.

0nder eisting laws and *urisprudence this is not allowed, so this Court ruled in the a%oe-cited cases. f this


6/16

point is not stressed %' the Court, the present decision might %e misconstrued as a watering down of the settled

doctrine.

2. ID.; ID.; COURT MUST ADHERE TO THE GENERAL RULE DISALLOWING APPEALS IN CASES

OF EXONERATION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE. -- $here is more cogent reason, therefore, for the

Court to adhere to the general rule in an administratie case inoling nepotism. #esides, the law cannot %e

clearer on the matter. t made no distinction as regards the charge of nepotism. When the law does not

distinguish, the Court should not distinguish. t should also %e noted that Presidential ecree No. B= has not

undergone an' pertinent amendment since the Court applied the law in Paredes. rom the time of its passage

on 3cto%er , 89> until the present, appeals %' the goernment in cases of eoneration in an administratie

case had %een disallowed. t was not onl' the result of this Courts interpretation of the law in Paredes that

made it so. t was rather the real and definite intention of the Philippine Ciil Serice law. f it was the

intention of /egislature to allow appeals as the ma*orit' holds or as 4r. 5ustice Puno suggests, then, an

amendment to that effect could hae %een introduced and passed. $hen President 4arcos who had full

legislatie power could hae easil' amended the said law. $he records show that he did not. $he fact that no

such amendment has %een introduced een after the re-institution of a legislatie %od', the #atasang Pam%ansa,

and later in 89B, the Congress of the Philippines, signifies that, at the er' least our interpretation

in Paredes and the other su%se(uent cases sits well with Congress. t is m' su%mission that the prerogatie tonow determine whether this practice of disallowing appeals in cases of eoneration should still continue or not,

eclusiel' %elongs to /egislature. $he Court cannot and should not arrogate this polic'-ma&ing power of

Congress unto itself, not een in the guise of the eercise of its epanded power of *udicial reiew under the

89B Constitution. 3nl' Congress has authorit' to remed' inade(uacies in the wisdom of a law, should it find

an', especiall' when the definite intention of the eisting law was to disallow the State to appeal from

*udgments of eoneration. An' attempt %' the Court to trangress this most %asic principle in the separation of

powers %etween these two %ranches of goernment would, to m' mind, result in the a%horrent act of *udicial

legislation, if not outright disregard of Article of the Ciil Code.

3. ID.; ID.; SECTION 39% PARAGRAPH !A$ THEREOF NO APPEAL MAY BE TA(EN FROM THE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS EXONERATING A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE IN AN

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE. -- 7ffectie 5une 8, 899>, )eised Administratie Circular No. 8-9> ordained

that, appeals from awards, *udgments or final orders or resolutions of or authorized %' an' (uasi-*udicial

agenc' !which includes the Ciil Serice Commission" in the eercise of its (uasi-*udicial functions shall %e

ta&en %' filing a erified petition for reiew with the Court of Appeals. Although in general, appeal

%' certiorari from a *udgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals ma' %e filed ia a erified

petition for reiew on certiorari with this Court !where pure (uestions of law, distinctl' set forth therein, ma'

%e dul' raised", an appeal inoling a *udgment or final order of the Court of Appeals eonerating a

goernment emplo'ee in an administratie case, in particular, falls within the am%it of the proisions of

Section ;9, paragraph !a" of Presidential ecree No. B=. t is elementar' that a special law such as

Presidential ecree No. B= ta&es precedence oer general rules of procedure such as )ule D> of the )ules of

Court. No appeal ma', therefore, %e ta&en under )ule D>.

. ID.; ID.; TERM PARTY ADVERSELY AFFECTED SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE

THE STATE IN ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES INVOLVING NEPOTISM. -- t is recognized in our

*urisdiction that an administratie case which could result in the reocation of license, or similar sanctions li&e

dismissal from office, constitutes a proceeding which parta&es of a criminal nature 0cf. Pascual vs. /oard of

edical -aminers, :B SC)A ;D> ?899@". #eing such, proisions of law pertaining thereto must perforce %e

construed strictl' against the State, *ust as penal laws are strictl' construed strictl' against the State ! People vs.

anantan, > SC)A BD ?89:@". An' am%iguit', should there %e an', must %e resoled in faor of the


7/16

respondent in the administratie case. $he term part' adersel' affected should not %e construed as to include

the State in administratie charges inoling nepotism.

5. ID.; ID.; APPEALS FROM DECISIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASES% NOT ALLOWED;

RATIONALE. -- $o allow appeals from decisions, %e the' eoneratie or otherwise, against ciil serice

emplo'ees would, to m' mind, %e stoc&ing the sta&es too much against our ciil serants. t should %e noted in

this regard that the greater %ul& of our goernment wor&ers are ordinar' people, wor&ing under superision

and, more often than not, eposed to political pressure and the influence of peddlers of power. $heir simple

status notwithstanding, the' are not easil' cowed and intimidated. 4an', though, are threatened with

complaints, transfer of station, or demotion, if the' refuse to do the %idding of some unscrupulous superiors or

politicians. can, therefore, understand wh' the law and our *urisprudence disallow appeal %' the complainant

from decisions in administratie cases, %e the' eoneratie or otherwise. Veril', an emplo'ee ma' %e hounded

into spending up to his last resources and losing his self-respect and honor %' successie appeals. What will

happen, if for instance, the respondent goernment emplo'ee is initiall' eonerated or gien a light penalt',

and the complainant ma' appeal, insisting that the emplo'ee is guilt' or that he deseres a heaier penalt'<

And, if the Ciil Serice Commission thereafter metes out a penalt' not to the li&ing of the complainant, the

matter ma' still %e eleated to the Court of Appeals or een this Court< Where else will all this end, if not in

the ph'sical and financial ehaustion of the respondent ciil serant< Again, wish to stress that spea& hereof the ordinar' emplo'ees. $he %ig shots in goernment who commit wrongs ma' somehow here%' %enefit,

%ut then we shall %e content in concluding that we decided in faor of the man', that the good of the ma*orit'

preailed. A *udgment of eoneration %' the Court of Appeals, as in the case of a *udgment of eoneration %'

the Ciil Serice Commission or the now defunct 4erit S'stem Protection #oard, ma' indeed proe to %e trul'

aderse to the goernment agenc' concerned and eentuall' to the State as a whole. $his is especiall' so when

there had %een lapses in the interpretation andHor application of the law as in the present case. $his

notwithstanding, the right to appeal, which is merel' statutor' ma' not %e ino&ed, much less eercised, when

the law does not proide an'. Again, until and unless Congress eercises its prerogatie to amend such law,

this Court is %ound %' it and has no other recourse ecept to appl' the same.

'. ID.; ID.; APPEAL BY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION FROM A &UDGMENT OF EXONERATION

ALLOWED IN CASE AT BAR; REASON; RULING IN MENDO+A CASE !233 SCRA '5"$

APPLIED. -- As a final o%seration, it ma' well %e noted that the result in the present case ma' alread' %e

achieed %' the application of this Courts ruling in endoza. t might not %e necessar' to step oer %oard %'

institutionalizing the case of nepotism as an eception to Paredes, or, as 4r. 5ustice Puno proposes,

a%andoning Paredes altogether. %eliee that it will do our *ustice s'stem more good than harm if we a%ide %'

the principle of stare decisis in the present case. $his case, hum%l' su%mit is not the proper ehicle to reiew

and a%andon doctrines of long standing, for nonetheless, the appeal %' the complainant is allowed there %eing

no o%*ection thereto %' respondent aco'co'. We need not distur% at this time our old rulings. We need not

enter uncertain and mined fields, for the result sought to %e accomplished %' the ma*orit' can well %e achieed

%' simpl' following and appl'ing our preious rulings on the matter.

ROMERO% J., dissenting opinion*

1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; CIVIL SERVICE LAW; CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION; NO LEGAL

PERSONALITY TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS EXONERATING AN

EMPLOYEE CHARGED IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE INVOLVING NEPOTISM. -- After an

ehaustie and careful scrutin' of P.. No. B= !otherwise &nown as the Ciil Serice /aw", 7ecutie 3rder

No. :9: !otherwise &nown as the )eised Administratie Code of 89B" as well as the 3mni%us )ules

mplementing #oo& V of 7ecutie 3rder No. :9:, find no legal %asis to support the contention of the


8/16

ma*orit' that the Commission has that legal personalit'. Section ;D, )ule FV of the 3mni%us )ules

mplementing #oo& V of 7ecutie 3rder No. :9: proides the answer as to who ma' appear %efore the

Commission, thus1 Administratie proceedings ma' %e commenced against a su%ordinate officer or

emplo'ee by the following officials and emplo'ees. Conse(uentl', the complainant can either %e the Secretar'

of department, head of office of e(uialent ran&, head of a local goernment unit, chief of agenc', regional

director or an' other person or part'. $he phrase an' other part' has %een understood to %e a complainant

other than the head of department or office of e(uialent ran& or head of local goernment or chiefs of

agencies or regional directors. As further illustrated in Sec. ; of P.. No. B=1 . A complaint ma' %e

filed directl' with the Commission %' a priate citizen against a goernment official or emplo'ee .

$he respondent , on the other hand, is an' su%ordinate officer or emplo'ee. Nowhere can %e found, epressl'

or impliedl', in Section ;D of )ule FV of 3mni%us )ules mplementing #oo& V of 7.3. No. :9:, the

Commission as one of the parties, either as complainant or respondent in an administratie case. /ogicall' and

%' necessar' implication, it cannot %e considered either a complainant or a respondent. -pressio unius est

e-clusio alterius. $he epress mention of one person, thing or conse(uence implies the eclusion of all others.

#ased on the foregoing, there is no other conclusion %ut that the Ciil Serice Commission is not a part' to an

administratie proceeding %rought %efore it. As proided %' Supreme Court Administratie Circular 8-9>,

decisions, orders or rulings of the Commission ma' %e %rought to the Supreme Court, now to the Court of

Appeals, oncertiorari %' the aggrieed part'. #' inference, an aggrieed part' is either the one who initiatedthe complaint %efore the Commission or the respondent, the person su%*ect of the complaint. n fact, the

(uestion as to who is an aggrieed part' has long %een settled in a litan' of cases. An aggrieed part' in an

administratie case is the goernment emplo'ee against whom an administratie complaint is filed. $he Ciil

Serice Commission is definitel' not a goernment emplo'ee. Neither is it an agenc' against whom an

administratie charge is filed. While it ma' %e argued that, in a sense, the goernment is an aggrieed part' in

administratie proceedings %efore the Commission, it neertheless is not the aggrieed part' contemplated

under P . No. B= or the Ciil Serice /aw. +aing esta%lished that the Ciil Serice Commission is not a

part', much less an aggrieed part', then indu%ita%l', it has no legal personalit' to eleate the case to the

appellate authorit'. $he Commission, therefore, has no legal standing to file the instant petition.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; SHOULD DETACH ITSELF FROM CASES WHERE ITS DECISION IS APPEALED TO A

HIGHER COURT FOR REVIEW. -- While admittedl', the Ciil Serice Commission is considered a

nominal part' when its decision is %rought %efore the Court of Appeals, such is onl' a procedural formalit'. As

with appellate processes, a nominal part' is not the aggrieed part'. ts inclusion as a part' is %ased primaril'

on the fact that the decision, order or ruling it issued is %eing contested or assailed and secondaril', for

purposes of enforcement. #' analog', the Commission in the performance of its (uasi-*udicial functions is *ust

li&e a *udge who should detach himself from cases where his decision is appealed to a higher court for reiew.

$he raison detre for such doctrine is that a *udge is not an actie com%atant in such proceeding and must leae

the opposing parties to contend their indiidual positions and for the appellate court to decide the issues

without his actie participation. #' filing this case, petitioner in a wa' ceased to %e *udicial and has %ecome

adersarial instead.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

The Solicitor 1eneral for petitioner.

Cesar %. Sevilla Partners for respondent.


9/16

[G.R. No. 135805. April 29, 1999]

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioer, !". #E$RO O. $ACO%CO%, re"po&et.

$ E C I S I O N

#AR$O, '.(

)*e +"e -eore /" i" ppel !i +ertiorri iterpo"e& - t*e Ci!il Ser!i+e

Coi""io ro &e+i"io o t*e Co/rt o Appel" r/li t*t re"po&et #e&ro O.

$+o+o " ot /ilt o epoti" & &e+lri /ll & !oi& t*e Ci!il Ser!i+eCoi""io" re"ol/tio &i"i""i *i ro t*e "er!i+e " Vo+tiol S+*ool

A&ii"trtor, 4li+/tro Collee o Art" & )r&e, Alle, Nort*er Sr.

)*e +t" -e "/++i+tl relte& " ollo"(

O No!e-er 29, 1995, Geore #. S/, Citie" Crie 6t+* Vi+e7#re"i&et,

Alle C*pter, Nort*er Sr, le& it* t*e Ci!il Ser!i+e Coi""io, /eo

Cit, +oplit i"t #e&ro O. $+o+o, or *-it/l &r/:ee"", i"+o&/+t

& epoti".[1]

Ater t*e +t7&i i!e"titio, t*e Ci!il Ser!i+e Reiol O;+e No. 8, )+lo-

Cit, o/& pri +ie +"e i"t re"po&et, &, o Mr+* 5, 199


10/16

O ?e-r/r 25, 199=, re"po&et $+o+o le& otio or re+o"i&ertio@[]

*oe!er, o M 20, 199=, t*e Ci!il Ser!i+e Coi""io &eie& t*e otio.[5]

O '/l 18, 199=, re"po&et $+o+o le& it* t*e Co/rt o Appel" "pe+il +i!il

+tio or +ertiorri it* preliir iB/+tio[


11/16

ppoiti or re+oe&i /t*orit, or o t*e +*ie o t*e -/re/ or o;+e, or o

t*e per"o" eFer+i"i ie&ite "/per!i"io o!er *i, re *ere- pro*i-ite&.

A" /"e& i t*i" Se+tio, t*e or& relti!e & e-er" o t*e il reerre& to re

t*o"e relte& it*i t*e t*ir& &eree eit*er o +o"/iit or o ;it.

D2 )*e olloi re eFepte& ro t*e opertio" o t*e r/le" o epoti"( D

per"o" eploe& i +o&etil +p+it, D- te+*er", D+ p*"i+i", & D&

e-er" o t*e Are& ?or+e" o t*e #*ilippie"( #ro!i&e&, *oe!er, )*t i e+*

prti+/lr i"t+e /ll report o "/+* ppoitet "*ll -e &e to t*e

Coi""io.

&er t*e &eitio o epoti", oe i" /ilt o epoti" i ppoitet i"

i""/e& i !or o relti!e it*i t*e t*ir& +i!il &eree o +o"/iit or ;it

o o t*e olloi(

ppoiti /t*orit@

- re+oe&i /t*orit@

+ +*ie o t*e -/re/ or o;+e, &

& per"o eFer+i"i ie&ite "/per!i"io o!er t*e ppoitee.

Clerl, t*ere re o/r "it/tio" +o!ere&. I t*e l"t to etioe& "it/tio", it i"

iteril *o t*e ppoiti or re+oe&i /t*orit i". )o +o"tit/te !ioltio o t*e l, it "/;+e" t*t ppoitet i" eFte&e& or i""/e& i !or o

relti!e it*i t*e t*ir& +i!il &eree o +o"/iit or ;it o t*e +*ie o t*e

-/re/ or o;+e, or t*e per"o eFer+i"i ie&ite "/per!i"io o!er t*e

ppoitee.


12/16


13/16

S/-"e/etl, t*e Co/rt o Appel" re!er"e& t*e &e+i"io o t*e Ci!il Ser!i+e

Coi""io & *el& re"po&et ot /ilt o epoti". 6*o o ppel t*e

&e+i"io o t*e Co/rt o Appel" to t*e S/pree Co/rtJ Certil ot t*e

re"po&et, *o " &e+lre& ot /ilt o t*e +*re. Nor t*e +oplit Geore

#. S/, *o " erel ite"" or t*e o!eret.[13] Co"e/etl, t*e Ci!il

Ser!i+e Coi""io *" -e+oe t*e prt &!er"el e+te& - "/+* r/li, *i+*"erio/"l preB/&i+e" t*e +i!il "er!i+e ""te. >e+e, " rie!e& prt, it

ppel t*e &e+i"io o t*e Co/rt o Appel" to t*e S/pree Co/rt.[1] 4 t*i" r/li,

e o eFpre""l -&o & o!err/le eFtt B/ri"pr/&e+e t*t t*e p*r"e prt

&!er"el e+te& - t*e &e+i"io reer" to t*e o!eret eploee i"t

*o t*e &ii"trti!e +"e i" le& or t*e p/rpo"e o &i"+iplir +tio *i+*

t:e t*e or o "/"pe"io, &eotio i r: or "lr, tr"er, reo!l or

&i"i""l ro o;+e[15] & ot i+l/&e& re +"e" *ere t*e pelt ipo"e& i"

"/"pe"io or ot ore t*e t*irt D30 &" or e i o/t ot eF+ee&i

t*irt &" "lr[1


14/16


15/16

[3] Re"ol/tio No. 9=0


16/16

[15] Me&e !". Ci!il Ser!i+e Coi""io, 20 SCRA 9

Documents

Csc v Dacoycoy