G.R. No. 242005 , June 26, 2019
RAMIL A. BAGAOISAN, M.D., CHIEF OF HOSPITAL I, CORTES MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL, CORTES, SURIGAO DEL SUR, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR MINDANAO, DAVAO CITY, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Ramil A. Bagaoisan, M.D., was the Chief of Hospital I of Cortes Municipal Hospital in Surigao del Sur. On May 26, 2011, he issued Office Memorandum Order No. 012, designating his wife, Nelita L. Bagaoisan, who was already a Nutritionist-Dietician I in the same hospital, to the additional positions of Administrative Officer and Liaison Officer. Subsequently, on November 5, 2013, he issued Office Memorandum Order No. 028, further designating her to function as the “Internal Control Unit.” These designations were made in addition to her existing plantilla position.
An anonymous complaint was filed with the Field Investigation Unit of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, alleging that petitioner committed nepotism. This led to the filing of a complaint-affidavit charging him administratively with Grave Misconduct and criminally for violation of Section 59, Chapter 8, in relation to Section 67, Chapter 10, Title I-A, Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (the Administrative Code of 1987). In his defense, petitioner argued that the anti-nepotism rule prohibits appointments, not mere designations, and that his wife did not receive any additional compensation for the designations. He also claimed the positions were non-plantilla and that he acted in good faith.
The Office of the Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with all its accessory penalties. It ruled that the prohibition on nepotism covers both appointment and designation, as a contrary interpretation would allow circumvention of the law. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman’s decision in toto, holding that the undisputed facts constituted a violation of the nepotism rule, and that good faith and lack of additional compensation were immaterial.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Ombudsman’s finding that petitioner is guilty of Grave Misconduct for violating the rule against nepotism, warranting the penalty of dismissal from service.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed CA decision. The Court held that petitioner’s act of designating his wife to additional positions constituted nepotism, a form of Grave Misconduct.
The Ratio Decidendi is as follows:
1. The Anti-Nepotism Rule Under Section 59 of the Administrative Code of 1987 Prohibits Both Appointment and Designation. The law states that “all appointments” in favor of a relative within the third degree are prohibited. The Court, citing Laurel V v. CSC, emphasized that the term “appointment” encompasses “designation.” A designation is merely a unilateral act of an administrative superior, while an appointment involves a process with specific requirements. To exclude designation from the prohibition would create a glaring loophole, allowing appointing authorities to circumvent the law by merely “designating” relatives to vacant or newly created functions instead of formally appointing them. This interpretation upholds the law’s intent to prevent favoritism and conflicts of interest in the civil service.
2. The Elements of Nepotism Were Present. The prohibition applies if an appointment (or designation) is made in favor of a relative within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity of the appointing authority. Here, it was undisputed that Nelita is petitioner’s wife (first degree of affinity) and that petitioner, as Chief of Hospital, was the appointing/recommending authority who issued the office memoranda designating her. The fact that the designated positions were allegedly “non-plantilla” or that no additional compensation was given is irrelevant. The law focuses on the act of conferring a favor, advantage, or additional responsibility to a relative, regardless of monetary benefit. The creation of the positions via office memoranda and the bestowal of additional duties and titles upon his wife constituted the prohibited act.
3. The Violation Constitutes Grave Misconduct. Misconduct is a transgression of established rules. Grave misconduct implies a wrongful intention and a flagrant disregard of basic rules. By deliberately designating his wife to multiple additional positions, petitioner exhibited a conscious disregard of the explicit prohibition against nepotism, a fundamental civil service rule. His defense of good faith was correctly rejected, as the act itself is prohibited by law, and intent is not an element of the administrative offense of nepotism. The penalty of dismissal from service is the prescribed penalty for Grave Misconduct under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service and is therefore appropriate.
The Court also noted that petitioner’s submission of documents purportedly showing his wife’s refusal of the designations was a belated attempt and did not absolve him, as the designations had already been issued and implemented.