ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 135805.February 29, 2000]

CSC vs. DACOYCOY

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 29 2000.

G.R. No. 135805(Civil Service Commission vs. Pedro C. Dacoycoy.)

Before us is the motion for reconsideration filed by respondent Pedro O. Dacoycoy of the decision promulgated on April 29,1999.Dacoycoy's motion for reconsideration is anchored on the argument that the penalty of dismissal meted on him violates the principle of prospectivity of statutes.

Pedro O. Dacoycoy is the vocational school administrator of the Balicuatro College of Arts and Trades, Allen, Northern Samar.

After formal investigation by the Civil Service Commission, he was found guilty of nepotism on two counts.

According to respondent Dacoycoy, the appointments of his son Rito Dacoycoy was on April 15, 1991, while that of his son Ped Dacoycoy was on January 1 to March 21, 1993.At the time of their appointments the law only imposes suspension of six months and one day as penalty for nepotism, since Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 took effect only on February 14, 1992.

The contention is devoid of any merit.Under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 53 s. of 1990 which was registered with the office of the National Administrative Register on January 30, 1991, nepotism was reclassified as a grave offense punishable by DISMISSAL.Hence, at the time of the appointments of the Dacoycoy brothers the penalty for nepotism was already dismissal.

As to the contention that the appointments of his two sons do not constitute nepotism since he was not the appointing or the recommending authority, the same deserves no serious consideration.In our decision, we said that there are four instances under Section 59 of Executive Order No. 292, s 1987, that constitute nepotism, that is, "one is guilty of nepotism if an appointment is issued in favor of a relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of any of the following:

a) appointing authority;

b) recommending authority;

c) chief of bureau or office, and

d) person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee"

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby DENIES the respondent's motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.This denial is final.The Justices maintained their votes as in the original decision.Justices PUNO and MENDOZA, concurred, while Justices MELO, VITUG and QUISUMBING, dissented.Justice DE LEON, JR. took no part.

The Court Resolved to NOTE the Letter dated 23 December 1999 of Mr. George P. Suan, Vice President, CCW.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE