NEPOTISM

All appointments extended to relatives within the third (3rd) degree of the following
persons are prohibited, namely:

1. Appointing Authority;
2. Recommending Authority;
3. Chief of Bureau or Office; and
4. Person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee.

Moreover, in the case of Debulgado vs. CSC, 237 SCRA 184, the Supreme Court had
the occasion to rule on the coverage and purpose of the prohibition on nepotism, as follows:

1. The original appointment of a civil service employee and all subsequent personnel
actions undertaken by or in respect of that employee must comply with the prohibition
against nepotism.

2. The purpose of the prohibition against nepotism is to ensure that all appointments and
other personnel actions in the civil service should be based on merit and fitness and
should never depend on how close or intimate an appointee to the appointing power
(purpose)

3. The prohibition against nepotism applies quite without regard to the actual merit of the
proposed appointee and to the good intentions of the appointing or recommending
authority (on argument of good intentions).

4. The purpose of the prohibition against nepotism is precisely to take out of the discretion
of the appointing or recommending authority the matter of appointing or recommending
for appointment a relative (Purpose)

NUTSHELL:

1. The purpose or objective of the prohibition against nepotism strongly indicates that the
prohibition was intended to be a comprehensive one.

2. It covers not only original appointments but also subsequent personnel actions of an
employee such as promotion, transfer, re-employment and the like.

The prohibition against nepotism covers promotions

Dacoycoy Ruling
Subsequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Civil Service Commission and
held respondent not guilty of nepotism. Who now may appeal the decision of the Court of
Appeals to the Supreme Court? Certainly not the respondent, who was declared not guilty of the
charge. Nor the complainant George P. Suan, who was merely a witness for the government.
Consequently, the Civil Service Commission has become the party adversely affected by such
ruling, which seriously prejudices the civil service system. Hence, as an aggrieved party, it may
appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. By this ruling, we now
expressly abandon and overrule extant jurisprudence that “the phrase ‘party adversely affected
by the decision’ refers to the government employee against whom the administrative case is filed
for the purpose of disciplinary action which may take the form of suspension, demotion in rank or
salary, transfer, removal or dismissal from office” and not included are “cases where the penalty
imposed is suspension for not more then thirty (30) days or fine in an amount not exceeding thirty
days salary” or “when the respondent is exonerated of the charges, there is no occasion for
appeal.” In other words, we overrule prior decisions holding that the Civil Service Law “does not
contemplate a review of decisions exonerating officers or employees from administrative charges”
enunciated in Paredes v. Civil Service Commission;

1. The decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the decision of the CSC in an administrative
case may be appealed by –

a. The complainant being adversely affected by the decision

b. CSC, its decision being reversed by CA
c. Respondent exonerated by the charges