Debulgado Vs CSC

G.R. NO.
111471, SEPTEMBER 26, 1994

CITY MAYOR ROGELIO R. DEBULGADO AND VICTORIA T. DEBULGADO,
PETITIONERS, VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.
Facts:
Petitioner Rogelio R. Debulgado is the incumbent Mayor of the City of San Carlos, Negros
Occidental. On 1 October 1992, petitioner Mayor appointed his wife, petitioner Victoria T. Debulgado, as
head of the Office of General Services of the City Government of San Carlos. The appointment came about
after considering three (3) other employees of the City Government. Before the said promotion, she had
been in the service of the City Government for about 32 years. She joined the City Government on 3
January 1961 as Assistant License Clerk, before she was married to Rogelio. Through the years, she rose
from the ranks until finally on 1 October 1992, she assumed the new post, and commenced discharging the
functions, of General Services Officer of San Carlos City and receiving the regular salary attached to that
position.
On 16 December 1992, public respondent Civil Service Commission (CSC) received a letter from
Congressman Tranquilino B. Carmona of the First District of Negros Occidental, calling attention to the
promotional appointment issued by petitioner Mayor in favor of his wife. The CSC directed its Regional
Office No. 6-Iloilo City to submit a report on the appointment of petitioner Victoria. The CSC then resolved
to recall the approval of the promotion by Director Escobia of the Bacolod City CSC-Field office after a
report was made by Director Caberoy of the Iloilo City CSRO No. 6 affirming the fact the relation of the
petitioners as husband and wife.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, contending that the statutory prohibition against nepotism
was not applicable to the appointment of Victoria as General Services Officer. Petitioners also asserted that
the CSC had deprived petitioner Victoria of her right to due process by unilaterally revoking her
appointment. The motion for reconsideration was denied on 21 July 1993.
In this petition for Certiorari, the basic contention of petitioners is that the prohibition against
nepotic appointments is applicable only to original appointments and not to promotional appointments.
They believe that because petitioner Victoria was already in the service of the City Government before she
married petitioner Mayor, the reason behind the prohibition no longer applied to her promotional
appointment. Petitioners also affirm that the promotion was not motivated by personal reasons of petitioner
Mayor since petitioner Victoria deserves to be promoted to General Services Officer, considering her long
and faithful service to the City Government. Petitioner Mayor also claimed that the promotion was of honest
intention having been concurred by the Sanggunian and after an informal consultation with one Gregorio C.
Agdon, a supervising personnel specialist in CSC’s Bacolod Office, affirmed that promotional appointment
is not covered by the prohibition against nepotism.
Issue/s:
A. Whether a promotional appointment is covered by the legal prohibition against nepotism, or

whether that prohibition applies only to original appointments to the Civil Service; and
B. Whether the Commission had gravely abused its discretion in recalling and disapproving the
promotional appointment given to petitioner Victoria after the Commission, through Director
Escobia, had earlier approved that same appointment, without giving an opportunity to petitioner
Victoria to explain her side on the matter.
Ruling:
Section 59, Book V of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 defines nepotism as all
appointments to the national, provincial, city and municipal governments or in any branch or instrumentality
thereof, including government owned or controlled corporations, made in favor of a relative of the
appointing or recommending authority, or of the chief of the bureau or office, or of the persons exercising
immediate supervision over him. The word "relative" and members of the family referred to are those
related within the third degree either of consanguinity or of affinity. The definition shall be read in
1
conjunction with Section 1 Rule V of the Omnibus Implementing rules which says that all appointments in
the career service shall be made only according to the merit and fitness to be determined as far as
practicable by competitive examinations. It further provides that all original appointments and personnel
actions shall be in accordance with these Rules and with other regulations and standards that may be
promulgated by the Commission. The same section defines personnel action any action denoting
movement or progress of personnel in the civil service which includes promotion, transfer, reinstatement,
reemployment, detail, secondment, reassignment, demotion and separation. The definition of personnel
action is reiterated in Section 1 Rule VII of the same rules.
While the appointee may in fact be quite loyal and efficient and hardworking, that circumstance will
not prevent the application of the prohibition certainly in respect of the original appointment. The Court is
aware of the difficulties that the comprehensive prohibition against nepotism would impose upon petitioner
Victoria and others similarly situated. The prohibition is not intended by the legislative authority to penalize
faithful service. The purpose of the law which shines through the comprehensive and unqualified language
in which it was cast and has remained for decades is precisely to take out of the discretion of the appointing
and recommending authority the matter of appointing or recommending for appointment a relative.
The court concluded that Section 59, Book V, E.O. No. 292 means exactly what it says in plain and
ordinary language: it refers to “all appointments” whether original or promotional in nature. The public policy
embodied in Section 59 is clearly fundamental in importance, and the Court has neither authority nor
inclination to dilute that important public policy by introducing a qualification here or a distinction there. It
follows, therefore, that the appointment of Victoria is within the prohibited class of appointments.
On the second issue, the court ruled that the action taken by the CSC was not of a disciplinary
measure upon petitioners. The CSC, in approving or disapproving an appointment, only examines the
conformity of the appointment with applicable provisions of law and whether the appointee possesses all
the minimum qualifications and none of the disqualifications. The action of the CSC was only in
implementation of Sec. 59 Book V of EO No. 292. Because the promotional appointment in favor of
petitioner Victoria was a violation of Section 59, it was null and void as being contra legem. A void
appointment cannot give rise to security of tenure on the part of the holder of such appointment. The CSC
is empowered to take appropriate action on all appointments and other personnel actions, e.g., promotions.
Such power includes the authority to recall an appointment initially approved in disregard of applicable
provisions of Civil Service law and regulations. Section 20 of Rule VI of the Omnibus Implementing Rules
makes this clear that notwithstanding the initial approval of an appointment, it may be recalled if it is in
violation of other existing civil service law, rules and regulations.
The recall or withdrawal by the Commission of the approval which had been issued by one of its
Field Officers, Director Escobia, was accordingly lawful and appropriate, the promotional appointment of
petitioner Victoria being void “from the beginning.” The approval issued by Director Escobia did not, as it
could not, cure the intrinsic vice of that appointment. Therefore, that there was no grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the CSC.
Petition for Certiorari DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Debulgado Vs CSC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Debulgado Vs CSC

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

Debulgado Vs CSC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. NO.

111471, SEPTEMBER 26, 1994

A. Whether a promotional appointment is covered by the legal prohibition against nepotism, or

Petition for Certiorari DISMISSED for lack of merit.

You might also like