G.R. No. 200103 April 23, 2014 Civil Service Commission, Petitioner, MARICELLE M. CORTES, Respondent

G.R. No.
200103 April 23, 2014 Issue of the Case
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner, Whether or not the CA erred when it ruled that the appointment of respondent Cortes as IO V in the CHR is not covered by
vs. the prohibition against nepotism.
MARICELLE M. CORTES, Respondent.
Ruling of the Court

DECISION
The petition is impressed with merit.

ABAD, J.:
Nepotism is defined as an appointment issued in favor of a relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of
This case concerns the validity of appointment by the Commission En Banc where the appointee is the daughter of one of the any of the following: (1) appointing authority; (2) recommending authority; (3) chief of the bureau or office; and (4) person
Commissioners. exercising immediate supervision over the appointee.1 Here, it is undisputed that respondent Cortes is a relative of
Commissioner Mallari in the first degree of consanguinity, as in fact Cortes is the daughter of Commissioner Mallari.
The Facts and the Case

By way of exception, the following shall not be covered by the prohibition: (1) persons employed in a confidential capacity;
(2) teachers; (3) physicians; and (4) members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.2 In the present case, however, the
On February 19, 2008 the Commission En Banc of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) issued Resolution A 2008-19 appointment of respondent Cortes as IO V in the CHR does not fall to any of the exemptions provided by law.
approving the appointment to the position of Information Officer V (IO V) of respondent Maricelle M. Cortes. Commissioner
Eligio P. Mallari, father of respondent Cortes, abstained from voting and requested the CHR to render an opinion on the
legality of the respondent's appointment. In her defense, respondent Cortes merely raises the argument that the appointing authority referred to in Section 59 of the
Administrative Code is the Commission En Banc and not the individual Commissioners who compose it.
In a Memorandum dated March 31, 2008, CHR Legal Division Chief Atty. Efren Ephraim G. Lamorena rendered an opinion
that respondent Cortes' appointment is not covered by the rule on nepotism because the appointing authority, the The purpose of Section 59 on the rule against nepotism is to take out the discretion of the appointing and recommending
Commission En Banc, has a personality distinct and separate from its members. CHR Chairperson Purificacion C. Valera authority on the matter of appointing or recommending for appointment a relative. The rule insures the objectivity of the
Quisumbing, however, sent respondent a letter on the same day instructing her not to assume her position because her appointing or recommending official by preventing that objectivity from being in fact tested. 3Clearly, the prohibition against
appointment is not yet complete. nepotism is intended to apply to natural persons. It is one pernicious evil impeding the civil service and the efficiency of its
personnel.4
On April 4, 2008 the Civil Service Commission-NCR (CSC-NCR) Field Office informed Chairperson Quisumbing that it will
conduct an investigation on the appointment of respondent Cortes. Moreover, basic rule in statutory construction is the legal maxim that "we must interpret not by the letter that killeth, but by
the spirit that giveth life." To rule that the prohibition applies only to the Commission, and not to the individual members who
compose it, will render the prohibition meaningless. Apparently, the Commission En Banc, which is a body created by fiction
On April 9, 2008 Velda E. Cornelio, Director II of the CSC-NCR Field Office informed Chairperson Quisumbing that the of law, can never have relatives to speak of.
appointment of respondent Cortes is not valid because it is covered by the rule on nepotism under Section 9 of the Revised
Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions. According to the CSC-NCR, Commissioner Mallari is considered
an appointing authority with respect to respondent Cortes despite being a mere member of the Commission En Banc. Indeed, it is absurd to declare that the prohibitive veil on nepotism does not include appointments made by a group of
individuals acting as a body.1âwphi1 What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. This principle is elementary and
does not need explanation. Certainly, if acts that cannot be legally done directly can be done indirectly, then all laws would
Respondent Cortes appealed the ruling of Director Cornelio but the same was denied on September 30, 2008. be illusory.
Consequently, respondent Cortes filed a petition for review on November 24, 2008 before the CSC. In the present case, respondent Cortes' appointment as IO V in the CHR by the Commission En Banc, where his father is a
member, is covered by the prohibition. Commissioner Mallari's abstention from voting did not cure the nepotistic character of
the appointment because the evil sought to be avoided by the prohibition still exists. His mere presence during the
On March 2, 2010 the CSC issued Resolution 10-0370 where it denied the petition and affirmed the nepotic character of deliberation for the appointment of IO V created an impression of influence and cast doubt on the impartiality and neutrality
respondent Cortes’ appointment. Respondent Cortes filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied in Resolution of the Commission En Banc.
10-1396 dated July 12, 2010.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 11, 2011 and Resolution dated January 10, 2012
Consequently, in a letter dated August 10, 2010, CHR Commissioner and Officer-in-Charge Ma. Victoria V. Cardona of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 115380 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Resolution of the Civil Service Commission
terminated respondent’s services effective August 4, 2010. 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.
On August 16, 2010, respondent Cortes filed a Petition for Review with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction with the Court of Appeals (CA). SO ORDERED.
On August 11, 2011, the CA rendered its Decision granting the petition and nullified Resolution 10-0370 dated March 2, 2010
and 10-1396 dated July 12, 2010. The CA also ordered that Cortes be reinstated to her position as IO V in the CHR.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated January 10, 2012.
Hence, this petition.

G.R. No. 200103 April 23, 2014 Civil Service Commission, Petitioner, MARICELLE M. CORTES, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 200103 April 23, 2014 Civil Service Commission, Petitioner, MARICELLE M. CORTES, Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 200103 April 23, 2014 Civil Service Commission, Petitioner, MARICELLE M. CORTES, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

200103 April 23, 2014 Issue of the Case

Ruling of the Court

The petition is impressed with merit.

The Facts and the Case

Hence, this petition.

You might also like