[02] Civil Service Commission v.

Cortes
G.R. No. 200103, April 23, 2014, J. Abad Cortes: appointing authority referred to in Section 59, Administrative Code is
PETITIONERS/PROSECUTORS: CSC Commission En Banc and not individual Commissioners who compose it.
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: MARICELLE M. CORTES
 SC: purpose of Section 59 on rule against nepotism is to take out
discretion of appointing and recommending authority on appointing or
FACTS:
recommending for appointment a relative. The rule ensures objectivity of
 Commission En Banc of CHR Resolution A 2008–19: approving appointment to
appointing or recommending official by preventing that objectivity from
Information Officer V of respondent Cortes. Commissioner Mallari, Cortes’
being in fact tested. Clearly, the prohibition against nepotism is intended
father, abstained from voting and requested CHR to render opinion on legality
to apply to natural persons. It is one pernicious evil impeding the civil
of respondent’s appointment.
service and the efficiency of its personnel.4
 Memorandum: CHR Legal Division Chief Atty. Lamorena’s opinion: Cortes’
 Moreover, “we must interpret not by the letter that killeth, but by the
appointment is not covered by rule on nepotism because appointing authority,
spirit that giveth life.” To rule that the prohibition applies only to the
Commission En Banc, has personality distinct and separate from its members.
Commission, and not to the individual members who compose it, will
 CHR Chair Quisumbing: sent respondent a letter on the same day instructing
render the prohibition meaningless. Commission En Banc, which is a body
her not to assume her position bec her appointment is not yet complete.
created by fiction of law, can never have relatives to speak of.
 Civil Service Commission–NCR Field Office informed Quisumbing that it will
 Absurd to declare that prohibitive veil on nepotism does not include
conduct investigation on Cortes’ appointment.
appointments made by group of individuals acting as a body. What
 Cornelio, Director II, CSC–NCR Field Office: informed Quisumbing that Cortes’
cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.  Cortes’ appointment
appointment is not valid bec it is covered by rule on nepotism  Section 9,
as IO V in CHR by Commission En Banc, where her father is a member, is
Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions. Mallari
covered by prohibition. Mallari’s abstention from voting did not cure
is considered appointing authority with respect to Cortes despite being mere
nepotistic character of appointment bec evil sought to be avoided by
member of Commission En Banc.
prohibition still exists. His mere presence during deliberation for
 Cortes appealed the ruling of Cornelio  denied
appointment of IO V created impression of influence and cast doubt on
 Cortes filed petition for review before CSC  CSC Resolution 10–0370: denied
impartiality, neutrality of Commission En Banc.
petition; affirmed the nepotic character of respondent Cortes’ appointment.
 Cortes filed Motion for Reconsideration  denied DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated August
 CHR Commissioner and Officer–in–Charge Cardona terminated Cortes’ services 11, 2011 and Resolution dated January 10, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA–G.R. SP 115380
effective August 4, 2010. are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Resolution of the Civil Service Commission dated March
 Cortes filed Petition for Review with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary 2, 2010 affirming the CSC–NCR Decision dated September 30, 2008 invalidating the appointment
Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction with CA  CA: of respondent Maricelle M. Cortes for being nepotistic is hereby REINSTATED.
granted petition; nullified CSC Resolutions; ordered that Cortes be reinstated as
IO V in CHR.
 Petitioner filed Motion for Reconsideration  denied by CA

ISSUES and RULING: WON CA erred when it ruled that Cortes’ appointment as IO
V in the CHR is not covered by prohibition against nepotism.  YES
 Nepotism: appointment issued in favor of a relative within 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.  Cortes is the daughter
of Commissioner Mallari.
 No covered by prohibition: (1) persons employed in confidential capacity; (2)
teachers; (3) physicians; and (4) members of AFP.  Appointment of Cortes as
IO V in CHR does not fall to any of the exemptions provided by law.