CSC V. DACOYCOY
FACTS
Pedro O Dacoycoy was charged of nepotism on two counts as a result of the appointment of his two sons, Rito and Ped Dacoycoy, as driver and utility worker, respectively, and their assignment under his immediate supervision and control as the Vocational School Administrator, Balicuatro College of Arts and Trades. The Recommendation was made by Mr. Daclag, who was under the supervision of Respondent Dacoycoy.
ISSUE
1) Whether Respondent Dacoycoy is guilty of nepotism?
2) Whether the Civil Service Commission is the property party to appeal the suit.
HELD
1) YES. Under the definition of nepotism, one is guilty of nepotism if an appointment is issued in favor of a relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of any of the following: a) appointing authority; b) recommending authority; c) chief of the bureau or office; and d) person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee. (see page 435 of the case for the exceptions: not really important in the case)
To constitute a violation of the law, it suffices that an appointment is extended or issued in favor of a relative within the third civil degree f consanguinity or affinity of the chief of the bureau or office, or the person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee.
Undoubtedly, Respondent can be held responsible for the appointment of his 2 sons. Mr. Daclag was a subordinate of respondent Pedro O. Dacoycoy, who was the school administrator, He authorized Mr. Daclag to recommend the appointment of first level employees under his immediate supervision. Then Mr. Daclag recommended the appointment of respondent’s two sons and placed them under his immediate supervision serving as driver and utility worker of the school.
2) YES, SC said that CSC was the proper party to appeal the suit because it was impleaded in the case and that the exoneration of Dcoycoy by the CA seriously prejudiced the civil service system. In this case, the SC expressly abandoned the prior rulings that an “aggrieved party” refers only to government employees adversely affected by the decision. In other words, the SC overruled prior decisions holding that the Civil Service Law “does not contemplate a review of decisions exonerating officers or employees from administrative charges”
Summary of opinions MELO, J., Dissenting and Concurring
PD. 807 has disallowed appeals by the government in cases of exoneration in an administrative case. Such has not yet been amended. The prerogative to amend such belongs to the Legislature and not to the Judiciary through its interpretations. ROMERO, J., Dissenting
PD. 807 included only government employees, either the one who filed the complaint or the one charged, is considered an “aggrieved party.” Expressio unius est exclusion alterius. The express mention of one person, thing or consequence implies the exclusion of all others. In this case, CSC or government instrumentalities was not included thus they are not the proper party to appeal the case.
Also CSC exercises quasi-judicial function and by analogy a judge should detach himself from cases where his decision is appealed to a higher court for review.
PUNO, J., Concurring
CSC may appeal the case by certiorari to determine if there was grave abuse of discretion in exonerating the respondent (Judicial Review.)
The question at bar is basically a legal one, i.e., the proper interpretation of who can be convicted of nepotism, and undoubtedly, this Court has the authoritative say on how to interpret laws.
