Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

CSC v. Dacoycoy GR 135805 Apri !

"# 1"""

Administrative Law; Case No. 5 $rancis %avier Sinon

$AC&S' George P. Suan, Vice-President of Citizens Crime Watch, Allen Chapter, Northern Samar, filed with petitioner CSC a complaint against respondent Pedro . !aco"co", a Vocational School Administrator of #alicuatro College of Arts and $rade, Allen, Northern Samar, for ha%itual drun&enness, misconduct and nepotism. After in'estigation, the CSC found respondent guilt" onl" of nepotism on two counts as a result of the appointment of his two sons as dri'er and utilit" wor&er of the school and their assignment under respondent(s immediate super'ision and control. Conse)uentl", the CSC dismissed respondent from the ser'ice. *espondent filed a special ci'il action for certiorari with preliminar" in+unction %efore the Court of Appeals. $he Court of Appeals re'ersed and set aside the decision of the CSC ruling that respondent did not appoint or recommend his two sons, hence, he was not guilt" of nepotism. $he appellate court further ruled that it is ,the person who recommends or appoints who should %e sanctioned, as it is he who performs the prohi%ited act.- .ence, this appeal. (SS)*' +,et,er it is material who the appointing or recommending authorit" is to constitute a 'iolation of the law on nepotism, as it is he who performs the prohi%ited act. -*LD' N.. &o constit/te a vio ation o0 t,e aw on nepotism# it is immateria w,o t,e appointin1 or recommendin1 a/t,ority is. /t suffices that an appointment is e0tended or issued in fa'or of a relati'e within the third degree of consanguinit" or affinit" of the chief of the %ureau or office, or the person e0ercising immediate super'ision o'er the appointee. /t is true that it was the .ead of the Vocational !epartment of the School who recommended the appointment of respondent(s two sons and placed them under respondent(s immediate super'ision ser'ing as dri'er and utilit" wor&er of the school. .owe'er, the .ead of the Vocational !epartment was a su%ordinate of respondent and it was the latter who authorized the former to recommend the appointment of first le'el emplo"ees such as, among others, dri'ers and utilit" wor&ers, under his immediate super'ision. $hus, the unseen hand of respondent was o%'iousl" %ehind the appointing or recommending authorit" in the appointment of his two sons. $he Supreme Court affirmed the resolutions of the CSC finding respondent guilt" of nepotism and meting out the penalt" if dismissal from the ser'ice. $he Supreme Court li&ewise ruled that petitioner has %ecome the part" ad'ersel" affected %" the ruling of the Court of Appeals in the instant case. .ence, as an aggrie'ed part", petitioner ma" appeal the decision of the appellate court to the Supreme Court. $he Court o'erruled prior decisions holding that the Ci'il Ser'ice 1aw does not contemplate a re'iew of decisions e0onerating officers or emplo"ees from administrati'e charges.