Civil Service Commission v. Cortes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Maricelle M. Cortes was appointed Information Officer V (IO V) by the Commission En Banc of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). Commissioner Eligio P. Mallari, father of respondent Cortes, abstained from voting on the appointment. The CHR Legal Division initially opined that the appointment was not covered by nepotism rules as the appointing authority was the Commission En Banc, distinct from its members. However, the CHR Chairperson instructed respondent Cortes not to assume the position pending completion. The CSC-NCR Field Office later informed the CHR Chairperson that the appointment was invalid due to nepotism, considering Commissioner Mallari an appointing authority. Respondent Cortes appealed, but her appeal was denied. Procedural History: Respondent Cortes filed a petition for review with the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which denied her petition and affirmed the invalidity of her appointment due to nepotism. Her motion for reconsideration was also denied. Consequently, her services were terminated. Respondent Cortes then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which granted her petition, nullified the CSC resolutions, and ordered her reinstatement. The Petition: The Civil Service Commission filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the CA's decision, arguing that the CA erred in ruling that the appointment was not covered by the prohibition against nepotism.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that the appointment of respondent Cortes as IO V in the CHR is not covered by the prohibition against nepotism; specifically, whether the appointment was nepotistic given that Commissioner Mallari, Cortes' father, was a member of the appointing authority (Commission En Banc), and whether Mallari's abstention cured any nepotistic character.
Ruling
The petition is impressed with merit. The Decision dated August 11, 2011 and Resolution dated January 10, 2012 of the Court 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.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the appointment of respondent Cortes is covered by the prohibition against nepotism: The Supreme Court ruled that the appointment of respondent Maricelle M. Cortes as Information Officer V (IO V) in the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) is indeed covered by the prohibition against nepotism. Nepotism is defined as an appointment issued in favor of a relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of any of the appointing authority, recommending authority, chief of the bureau or office, or person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee, as provided under Section 59 of the Administrative Code of 1987. In this case, respondent Cortes is the daughter of Commissioner Eligio P. Mallari, placing her within the first degree of consanguinity, and Commissioner Mallari is a member of the Commission En Banc, the appointing authority. The Court rejected respondent Cortes' defense that the appointing authority was the Commission En Banc as a distinct legal entity, separate from its individual members. It emphasized that the purpose of Section 59 is to remove discretion from the appointing and recommending authority to appoint relatives, thereby ensuring objectivity. To interpret the rule as applying only to the Commission as a body, and not to its individual members, would render the prohibition meaningless, as a legal fiction (the Commission En Banc) cannot have relatives. The Court stressed the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly, meaning that if an appointment by an individual Commissioner in favor of a relative is prohibited, the same cannot be circumvented by having a collegial body, which includes that relative, make the appointment. Furthermore, Commissioner Mallari's abstention from voting did not cure the nepotistic character of the appointment. The Court held that his mere presence during the deliberation for the appointment created an impression of influence and cast doubt on the impartiality and neutrality of the Commission En Banc. The evil sought to be avoided by the prohibition against nepotism still exists, as the appointment was made by a body of which his daughter was the beneficiary and he was a member. Therefore, the appointment was invalid for being nepotistic.
Main Doctrine
An appointment made by a collegial body, such as the Commission En Banc, is covered by the prohibition against nepotism if a member of that body is related within the prohibited degrees to the appointee, even if the relative abstained from voting. The purpose of the rule against nepotism is to prevent the exercise of discretion in favor of relatives, and this purpose is defeated if such appointments are allowed indirectly.