This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-04-23 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| 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.[3] 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.[4] | |||||
|
2013-04-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| SJO2 Almojuela asserts that the CSC has no legal personality to challenge the CA's amended decision because it must maintain its impartiality as a judge and disciplining authority in controversies involving public officers. He implores the Court to reconsider its ruling in Civil Service Commission v. Dacoycoy,[58] citing the arguments from Justice Romero's dissenting opinion. | |||||
|
2013-04-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| More than ten years have passed since the Court first recognized in Dacoycoy the CSC's standing to appeal the CA's decisions reversing or modifying its resolutions seriously prejudicial to the civil service system. Since then, the ruling in Dacoycoy has been subjected to clarifications and qualifications,[59] but the doctrine has remained the same:[60] the CSC has standing as a real party in interest and can appeal the CA's decisions modifying or reversing the CSC's rulings, when the CA action would have an adverse impact on the integrity of the civil service. As the government's central personnel agency, the CSC is tasked to establish a career service and promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service;[61] it has a stake in ensuring that the proper disciplinary action is imposed on an erring public employee, and this stake would be adversely affected by a ruling absolving or lightening the CSC-imposed penalty. Further, a decision that declares a public employee not guilty of the charge against him would have no other appellant than the CSC. To be sure, it would not be appealed by the public employee who has been absolved of the charge against him; neither would the complainant appeal the decision, as he acted merely as a witness for the government.[62] We thus find no reason to disurb the settled Dacoycoy doctrine. | |||||
|
2011-02-09 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The importance of the certification submitted to the CSC by the proper appointing authority in the local government unit, regarding compliance with the prohibition against nepotism under R.A. No. 7160 cannot be overemphasized. Under Section 67, Book V, Chapter 10 of the Administrative Code of 1987, a head of office or appointing official who issues an appointment or employs any person in violation of Civil Service Law and Rules or who commits fraud, deceit or intentional misrepresentation of material facts concerning other civil service matters, or anyone who violates, refuses or neglects to comply with any of such provisions or rules, may be held criminally liable. In Civil Service Commission v. Dacoycoy,[42] we held that mere issuance of appointment in favor of a relative within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity is sufficient to constitute a violation of the law. Although herein petitioners were prosecuted for the criminal offense of falsification of public document, it becomes obvious that the requirement of disclosure of relationship to the appointing power in the local government units simply aims to ensure strict enforcement of the prohibition against nepotism. | |||||
|
2010-02-16 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In support of its argument that it has legal interest, the Office of the Ombudsman cites Philippine National Bank v. Garcia, Jr. (Garcia). [13] In the said case, the Philippine National Bank (PNB) imposed upon its employee, Garcia, the penalty of forced resignation for gross neglect of duty. On appeal, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) exonerated Garcia from the administrative charges against him. In accordance with the ruling in Civil Service Commission v. Dacoycoy,[14] this Court affirmed the standing of the PNB to appeal to the CA the CSC resolution exonerating Garcia. After all, PNB was the aggrieved party which complained of Garcia's acts of dishonesty. Should Garcia be finally exonerated, it might then be incumbent upon PNB to take him back into its fold. PNB should, therefore, be allowed to appeal a decision that, in its view, hampered its right to select honest and trustworthy employees, so that it can protect and preserve its name as a premier banking institution in the country. | |||||
|
2008-02-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Interpreting the foregoing provisions, the Court has earlier held that, in an administrative case, only a decision involving the imposition of a penalty of suspension of more than 30 days, fine exceeding 30-day salary, demotion, transfer, removal or dismissal is appealable to the CSC; hence, a decision exonerating an employee cannot be appealed.[28] Moreover, given the nature of the appealable decision, only said employee would qualify as the "party adversely affected" who is allowed to appeal; other persons, such as the appointing or disciplining authorities, cannot appeal.[29] | |||||
|
2005-05-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Respondent Gentallan, for herself, claims that CSC has no standing to bring this petition as the CSC could not be a party that would be adversely affected by the review and reversal of its decision.[17] But the CSC citing Civil Service Commission v. Dacoycoy[18] insists that it has standing to appeal the case. | |||||
|
2003-08-14 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| That the CSC may appeal from an adverse decision of the Court of Appeals reversing or modifying its resolutions which may seriously prejudice the civil service system is beyond doubt. In Civil Service Commission v. Dacoycoy[25] this Court held that the CSC may become the party adversely affected by such ruling and the aggrieved party who may appeal the decision to this Court. | |||||