16 Debulgado vs. CSC

Debulgado vs.
CSC
G.R. No. 111471 September 26, 1994 EN BANC
FELICIANO, J.
Facts:
Rogelio R. Debulgado is the incumbent Mayor of the City of San Carlos, Negros
Occidental. Mayor appointed his wife, petitioner Victoria T. Debulgado, as General Services
Officer, that is, as head of the Office of General Services of the City Government of San Carlos.
Victoria was one of three (3) employees of the City Government who were considered for the
position of General Services Officer. Before her promotion in 1992, she had been in the service
of the City Government for about thirty-two (32) years. She joined the City Government on 3
January 1961 as Assistant License Clerk. Through the years, she rose from the ranks,
successively occupying the following positions:
(a) Assistant Chief of the License & Fees Division, from 1 July 1965 to 30 June 1973;
(b) Chief of the License and Fees Division, from 1 July 1973 to 1 January 1981;
(c) Cashier, from 2 January 1981 to 30 June 1989; and
(d) Cashier IV, from 1 July 1989 to 30 September 1992.
On 1 October 1992, petitioner Victoria assumed the new post, and commenced
discharging the functions, of General Services Officer of San Carlos City and receiving the
regular salary attached to that position.
Congressman Tranquilino B. Carmona of the First District of Negros Occidental, called
the attention of the CSC to the promotional appointment issued by petitioner Mayor in favor of
his wife. From the report submitted by Director Jesse J. Caberoy of the Iloilo City-CSRO No. 6,
the Commission found that petitioner Mayor was the lawful husband of the appointee, petitioner
Victoria, the two (2) having been married sometime in 1964. Director Caberoy also reported that
the appointment papers prepared by the Office of the City Mayor of San Carlos were submitted
to the Bacolod City CSC-Field Office on 28 October 1992, and that the appointment was
thereafter approved by Director Purita H. Escobia of that CSC-Field Office.
Acting on the report of Director Caberoy, the Commission, in its Resolution No. 93-1427
dated 13 April 1993, recalled the approval issued by Director Escobia and disapproved the
promotion of petitioner Victoria to the position of General Services Officer of San Carlos City
upon the ground that that promotion violated the statutory prohibition against nepotic
appointments.
Mayor and petitioner Victoria contend that the Commission had gravely abused its
discretion in withdrawing and disapproving petitioner Victoria's promotional appointment.
Petitioners assert that Victoria can no longer be removed from the position of General Services
Officer without giving her an opportunity to be heard and to answer the charged of nepotism.
Petitioner Mayor denies that he had been motivated by personal reasons when he
appointed his wife to the new post. He states that his wife was the most qualified among the
candidates for appointment to that position, she having worked for the City Government for
thirty-two (32) years and being highly recommended by the OIC-Treasurer of San Carlos City.
Issue: WON the right to due process of Victoria Debulgado was violated when her appointment
was revoked even though she was a legitimate candidate for the position.
Held: Petition DISMISSED
Ratio:
Section 6 of Rule XVIII, of the "Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive
Order No. 292 and other Pertinent Civil Service Laws," issued on 27 December 1991,
implementing, among other things, the abovequoted Section 59, provides as follows:
Sec. 6. No appointments in the national, provincial, city and municipal government or in any branch or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters shall
be made in favor of a relative of the appointing or recommending authority, or of the chief of the bureau or
office, or of the persons exercising immediate supervision over the appointee.
A textual examination of Section 59 at once reveals that the prohibition was cast in
comprehensive and unqualified terms. Firstly, it explicitly covers "all appointments", without
seeking to make any distinction between differing kinds or types of appointments. Secondly,
Section 59 covers all appointments to the national, provincial, city and municipal government, as
well as any branch or instrumentality thereof and all government owned or controlled
corporations. Thirdly, there is a list of exceptions set out in Section 59 itself.
For the appointee, whether in an original or a promotion appointment, may in fact be
quite loyal and efficient and hard-working; yet that circumstance will not prevent the application
of the prohibition certainly in respect of the original appointment. The Court is not unaware of
the difficulties that the comprehensive prohibition against nepotism would impose upon
petitioner Victoria and others who maybe in the same position. It is essential to stress, however,
that the prohibition applies quite without regard to the actual merits of the proposed appointee
and to the good intentions of the appointing or recommending authority, and that the prohibition
against nepotism in appointments whether original or promotional, is not intended by the
legislative authority to penalize faithful service.
It follows that the promotional appointment of petitioner Victoria by her husband,
petitioner Mayor, falls within the prohibited class of appointments: the prohibited relationship
between the appointing authority (petitioner Mayor) and the appointee (wife Victoria) existed at
the time the promotional appointment was issued. It is scarcely necessary to add that the reasons
which may have moved petitioner Mayor to issue the prohibited appointment are, as a matter of
law, not relevant in this connection.
There were no administrative charges in respect of which petitioner Victoria would have
been entitled to notice and hearing. The Commission, in approving or disapproving an
appointment, only examines the conformity of the appointment with applicable provisions of law
and whether the appointee possesses all the minimum qualifications and none of the
disqualifications. In any case, Victoria was afforded an opportunity to be heard when she filed a
motion for reconsideration with the Commission and there challenged the disapproval by the
Commission.
The action of the Commission was, in other words, taken in implementation of Section
59, Book V, E.O. No. 292 and the relevant Implementing Regulations. Because the promotional
appointment in favor of petitioner Victoria was a violation of Section 59, it was null and void as
being contra legem.

16 Debulgado vs. CSC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

16 Debulgado vs. CSC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

16 Debulgado vs. CSC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Debulgado vs.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.