Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    Civil Service Commission Vs Cortes

    Uploaded by

    Badette Lou R. Katigbak - Lasin
    This document summarizes a Philippines Supreme Court case regarding nepotism and the appointment of a relative to a civil service position. It defines nepotism as the appointment of a relative within the third degree of any appointing, recommending, overseeing, or supervising authority. The case found the respondent, Cortes, was appointed in violation of anti-nepotism rules as she was the daughter of the appointing authority, Commissioner Mallari. Exceptions for confidential positions, teachers, physicians, and military members did not apply in this case. The purpose of anti-nepotism rules is to ensure objectivity and prevent favoritism in appointments. It ruled the prohibition applies to both individual appointing authorities and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Civil Service Commission Vs Cortes

    Uploaded by

    Badette Lou R. Katigbak - Lasin
    52 views1 page
    This document summarizes a Philippines Supreme Court case regarding nepotism and the appointment of a relative to a civil service position. It defines nepotism as the appointment of a relative within the third degree of any appointing, recommending, overseeing, or supervising authority. The case found the respondent, Cortes, was appointed in violation of anti-nepotism rules as she was the daughter of the appointing authority, Commissioner Mallari. Exceptions for confidential positions, teachers, physicians, and military members did not apply in this case. The purpose of anti-nepotism rules is to ensure objectivity and prevent favoritism in appointments. It ruled the prohibition applies to both individual appointing authorities and

    Original Description:

    case

    Original Title

    Civil Service Commission vs Cortes

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Philippines Supreme Court case regarding nepotism and the appointment of a relative to a civil service position. It defines nepotism as the appointment of a relative within the third degree of any appointing, recommending, overseeing, or supervising authority. The case found the respondent, Cortes, was appointed in violation of anti-nepotism rules as she was the daughter of the appointing authority, Commissioner Mallari. Exceptions for confidential positions, teachers, physicians, and military members did not apply in this case. The purpose of anti-nepotism rules is to ensure objectivity and prevent favoritism in appointments. It ruled the prohibition applies to both individual appointing authorities and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    52 views1 page

    Civil Service Commission Vs Cortes

    Uploaded by

    Badette Lou R. Katigbak - Lasin
    This document summarizes a Philippines Supreme Court case regarding nepotism and the appointment of a relative to a civil service position. It defines nepotism as the appointment of a relative within the third degree of any appointing, recommending, overseeing, or supervising authority. The case found the respondent, Cortes, was appointed in violation of anti-nepotism rules as she was the daughter of the appointing authority, Commissioner Mallari. Exceptions for confidential positions, teachers, physicians, and military members did not apply in this case. The purpose of anti-nepotism rules is to ensure objectivity and prevent favoritism in appointments. It ruled the prohibition applies to both individual appointing authorities and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Civil Service Commission vs. Cortez, G.R. No.

    200103, April 23, 2014

    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; NEPOTISM; DEFINITION. 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 following: (1) appointing
    authority; (2) recommending authority; (3) chief of the bureau or office; and (4) person exercising
    immediate supervision over the appointee. 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.

    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; NEPOTISM; EXCEPTIONS. 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. In the present case, however, the appointment of
    respondent Cortes as IO V in the CHR does not fall to any of the exemptions provided by law.

    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; SECTION 59; PURPOSE. The purpose of Section 59 on the
    rule against nepotism is to take out the discretion of the appointing and recommending authority on the
    matter of appointing or recommending for appointment a relative. The rule insures the objectivity of the
    appointing or recommending official by preventing that objectivity from being in fact tested. Clearly, the
    prohibition against nepotism is intended to apply to natural persons. It is one pernicious evil impeding the
    civil service and the efficiency of its personnel.

    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; NEPOTISM; PROHIBITION; INCLUDES APPOINTMENTS BY A GROUP. 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 of law, can never have relatives to speak of.

    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. 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 be illusory.

    You might also like