GR 200103; (April, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 200103, April 23, 2014
Civil Service Commission, Petitioner, vs. Maricelle M. Cortes, Respondent.
FACTS
On February 19, 2008, the Commission En Banc of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) issued a resolution approving the appointment of respondent Maricelle M. Cortes to the position of Information Officer V. Commissioner Eligio P. Mallari, the father of Cortes, abstained from voting and sought an opinion on the appointment’s legality. The CHR Legal Division initially opined the appointment was not nepotistic as the appointing authority (the Commission En Banc) is distinct from its members. However, the Civil Service Commission-NCR (CSC-NCR) Field Office, upon investigation, declared the appointment invalid for violating the rule against nepotism, considering Commissioner Mallari as an appointing authority. Cortes appealed to the CSC, which affirmed the nepotic character of her appointment in Resolution 10-0370 dated March 2, 2010. Consequently, her services were terminated. Cortes then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which granted her petition, nullified the CSC resolutions, and ordered her reinstatement. The CSC filed the present petition after its motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the appointment of respondent Cortes as Information Officer V in the CHR is not covered by the prohibition against nepotism.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA decision. The Court ruled that the appointment of Cortes was covered by the prohibition against nepotism. Nepotism is defined under Section 59 of the Administrative Code of 1987 as an appointment in favor of a relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of the appointing or recommending authority, among others. It is undisputed that Cortes is the daughter of Commissioner Mallari, a relationship within the first degree. The Court held that the purpose of the rule is to remove discretion and ensure objectivity by preventing the appointment of relatives, and it applies to natural persons. Interpreting the prohibition to apply only to the Commission En Banc as a body, and not to its individual members, would render the rule meaningless, as a body created by law cannot have relatives. The Court emphasized that the evil sought to be avoided—the impression of influence and doubt on impartiality—persists even if the relative-member abstains from voting. Thus, the CSC resolutions invalidating Cortes’s appointment for being nepotistic were reinstated.