View full case

CITY MAYOR ROGELIO R. DEBULGADO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

FACTS:

Petitioner Rogelio R. Debulgado, the incumbent Mayor of the City of San Carlos, appointed his wife, petitioner Victoria T. Debulgado, as General Services Officer of the City Government. Before her promotion, petitioner Victoria had been in the service of the City Government for about thirty-two (32) years, starting as Assistant License Clerk. She rose through the ranks, holding positions such as Assistant Chief of the License & Fees Division, Chief of the License and Fees Division, Cashier, and Cashier IV. On October 1, 1992, petitioner Victoria assumed the position of General Services Officer and began receiving the salary for that position.

Congressman Tranquilino B. Carmona of the First District of Negros Occidental wrote a letter to the Civil Service Commission (Commission) on December 16, 1992, calling attention to the promotional appointment of petitioner Victoria. The Commission directed its Regional Office No. 6-Iloilo City to submit a report on the appointment. Based on the report from the Regional Office, the Commission found that petitioner Mayor and petitioner Victoria were married and that the appointment violated the prohibition on nepotic appointments.

In its Resolution No. 93-1427 dated April 13, 1993, the Commission recalled the approval of the appointment and disapproved petitioner Victoria's promotion on the grounds of nepotism. Petitioners received a copy of the resolution on June 14, 1993, and filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the prohibition against nepotism did not apply to the appointment of petitioner Victoria. They also claimed that the Commission deprived petitioner Victoria of her right to due process by unilaterally revoking her appointment. The motion for reconsideration was denied by the Commission on July 21, 1993.

Petitioners filed this Petition for Certiorari, challenging the Commission's withdrawal and disapproval of petitioner Victoria's promotion. They argue that petitioner Victoria cannot be removed from her position without being given an opportunity to be heard and answer the charge of nepotism. Petitioner Mayor denies that his decision to appoint his wife was motivated by personal reasons and asserts that petitioner Victoria was the most qualified candidate for the position. He also claims to have consulted with Commission officers regarding the applicability of the nepotism prohibition.

The Court is tasked to determine whether the prohibition against nepotism applies to promotional appointments and whether the Commission gravely abused its discretion in recalling and disapproving the appointment without giving petitioner Victoria an opportunity to explain her side.

Section 59, Book V of Executive Order No. 292 prohibits appointments in the national, provincial, city, and municipal governments, as well as any branch or instrumentality thereof and government-owned or controlled corporations, made in favor of a relative of the appointing or recommending authority or those exercising immediate supervision over the appointee. The word "relative" refers to those within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity. There are exemptions to this rule, which include persons employed in a confidential capacity, teachers, physicians, and members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

Section 6 of Rule XVIII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 essentially mirrors the provisions of Section 59. It further clarifies that unless otherwise provided by law, the term "relative" and family members referred to are those related within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity. It also provides the same exemptions and requires a full report of the appointment to the Commission.

Section 59 has been in existence for at least 30 years and states a comprehensive and unqualified prohibition on all appointments, without any distinction between types of appointments. It covers appointments in the national, provincial, city, and municipal governments, and government-owned or controlled corporations. The exceptions listed in Section 59 are limited to persons employed in a confidential capacity, teachers, physicians, and members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. This list has remained unchanged for the past 30 years and does not include additional positions.

Section 59 of Book V, E.O. No. 292 should be read in connection with the Omnibus Implementing Rules. Section 1, Rule V of the Omnibus Implementing Rules states that all appointments in the career service should be based on merit and fitness, determined as much as possible through competitive examinations. Personnel actions such as promotion, transfer, reinstatement, reemployment, detail, secondment, reassignment, demotion, and separation are considered as movements or progress of personnel in the civil service.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the prohibition against nepotism in Section 59 of Book V, E.O. No. 292 applies only to the initial appointment of a civil service employee or also to subsequent personnel actions.

  2. Whether the prohibition against nepotism includes designations or appointments made indirectly.

  3. Whether the purpose of the prohibition against nepotism is to ensure that all appointments and personnel actions in the civil service are based on merit and fitness.

  4. Whether the prohibition against nepotism applies to promotional appointments.

  5. Whether the approval of the promotional appointment by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) entitles the appointee to a vested right to the position.

  6. Whether or not the promotional appointment of petitioner Victoria is null and void for being in violation of Section 59 of the Civil Service Law.

  7. Whether or not the recall of the approval of the appointment by the Commission is lawful and appropriate.

RULING:

  1. The prohibition against nepotism applies to both the initial appointment of a civil service employee and subsequent personnel actions.

  2. The prohibition against nepotism includes both designations and appointments made indirectly, as what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.

  3. The purpose of the prohibition against nepotism is to ensure that all appointments and personnel actions in the civil service are based on merit and fitness and not on personal relationships.

  4. Yes, the prohibition against nepotism applies to both original and promotional appointments. The purpose of the prohibition is to take out of the discretion of the appointing and recommending authority the matter of appointing or recommending a relative. The prohibition is not intended to penalize faithful service or to consider the actual merits of the appointee. The comprehensive and unqualified language of the prohibition means that it applies to "all appointments" whether original or promotional. The promotional appointment of the petitioner falls within the prohibited class of appointments as the prohibited relationship between the appointing authority and the appointee existed at the time the appointment was issued.

  5. No, the approval of the promotional appointment by the CSC does not grant the appointee a vested right to the position. The action of the CSC in approving or disapproving an appointment is taken to ensure conformity with applicable provisions of law and to determine if the appointee possesses the minimum qualifications and none of the disqualifications. There were no administrative charges that would require notice and hearing on the part of the appointee. The appointee was given an opportunity to be heard when she filed a motion for reconsideration with the CSC challenging the disapproval.

  6. The promotional appointment of petitioner Victoria is null and void as it is in violation of Section 59 of the Civil Service Law. A void appointment cannot give rise to security of tenure for the holder of such appointment.

  7. The recall or withdrawal by the Commission of the approval issued by Director Escobia was lawful and appropriate. The approval issued by Director Escobia did not cure the intrinsic vice of the void appointment.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The prohibition against nepotism in the civil service applies not only to the initial appointment but also to subsequent personnel actions.

  • The prohibition against nepotism includes both direct appointments and indirect designations.

  • The purpose of the prohibition against nepotism is to ensure that appointments and personnel actions in the civil service are based on merit and fitness.

  • The prohibition against nepotism applies to both original and promotional appointments.

  • The purpose of the prohibition is to ensure objectivity in appointing or recommending relatives to positions.

  • The comprehensive language of the prohibition should not be diluted or qualified.

  • Approving or disapproving an appointment by the CSC is not a disciplinary measure but a scrutiny of the conformity with applicable laws and qualifications.

  • Approval of a promotional appointment does not grant a vested right to the position.

  • An appointment issued in violation of law is null and void.

  • A void appointment does not grant security of tenure to the holder.

  • The Civil Service Commission has the power to recall an appointment initially approved in violation of applicable provisions of Civil Service law and regulations.

  • The Civil Service Commission may review personnel actions on its own initiative.