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 San Carlos City, Negros Occidental. On October 1, 1992, he appointed his wife, petitioner Victoria T. Debulgado, as General Services Officer of the city government. Victoria had been in the city government’s service for about thirty-two years, having started as Assistant License Clerk in 1961 and risen through various positions, most recently as Cashier IV. Her appointment papers were submitted to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Field Office in Bacolod City and were approved by Director Purita H. Escobia on November 18, 1992. On December 16, 1992, Congressman Tranquilino B. Carmona brought the appointment to the CSC’s attention. The CSC, after a report from its Regional Office, found that the Mayor and appointee were lawfully married since 1964. In its Resolution No. 93-1427 dated April 13, 1993, the CSC recalled the approval and disapproved the promotion, citing a violation of the statutory prohibition against nepotism. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, arguing the prohibition applies only to original appointments, not promotional appointments, and that Victoria was deprived of due process. The motion was denied on July 21, 1993.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prohibition against nepotism under Section 59, Book V of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O. No. 292) applies to promotional appointments or only to original appointments.
2. Whether the Civil Service Commission gravely abused its discretion in recalling and disapproving the promotional appointment without giving petitioner Victoria an opportunity to be heard.

RULING

1. Yes, the prohibition against nepotism applies to promotional appointments. The Court examined Section 59 of E.O. No. 292, which prohibits “all appointments” in favor of a relative within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity of the appointing authority. The prohibition is comprehensive and unqualified, covering “all appointments” without distinction between original and promotional appointments. The exceptions are limited to persons in confidential capacity, teachers, physicians, and members of the Armed Forces, as expressly listed in the law. The Court rejected petitioners’ contention that the prohibition applies only to original appointments, noting that the law’s text does not support such a distinction. The Court also referenced its prior decision in Sulu Islamic Association of Masjid Lambayong v. Malik, where a promotional appointment was held to violate the nepotism rule. Thus, the CSC correctly applied the prohibition to Victoria’s promotional appointment.
2. No, the Civil Service Commission did not gravely abuse its discretion. The Court held that the CSC has the authority to recall an appointment approved in violation of the law or rules, such as the nepotism prohibition. The approval by a CSC Field Director did not render the appointment irrevocable if it was contrary to law. The CSC’s action in recalling the approval was a valid exercise of its power to correct such violations. Due process did not require a hearing in this context, as the issue was the legality of the appointment based on the undisputed fact of the marital relationship, not a disciplinary matter against Victoria. The CSC’s disapproval was based on the legal infirmity of the appointment itself, not on Victoria’s performance or conduct, so no hearing was necessary.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The CSC Resolutions recalling the approval and disapproving the promotional appointment of Victoria T. Debulgado are AFFIRMED.