REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW ICASE DIGESTS
[G.R. No. 135805. April 29, 1999]
Pedro Dacoycoy was charged withhabitual drunkenness, misconduct andnepotism. After the fact-finding investigation,the CSC Regional Office Tacloban City,found a
case against respondentand issued the corresponding formal chargeagainst him. Accordingly, the CSC conducteda formal investigation and the CSCpromulgated its resolution finding nosubstantial evidence to support the charge of habitual drunkenness and misconduct.However, CSC found respondent Dacoycoyguilty of nepotism on two counts as a result of the appointment of his two sons, Rito andPed, as driver and utility worker, respectively,and their assignment under his immediatesupervision and control as the VocationalSchool Administrator Balicuatro College of Arts and Trades, and imposed on him thepenalty of dismissal from the service.Respondent Dacoycoy filed a motion for reconsideration. However CSC denied themotion.
Respondent Dacoycoy filed with theCourt of Appeals a special civil action for
with preliminary injunction to setaside the Civil Service Commission’sresolutions.CA reversed and set aside the decision of theCSC, ruling that respondent did not appointor recommend his two sons Rito and Ped,and, hence, was not guilty of nepotism. TheCourt further held that it is “the person whorecommends or appoints who should besanctioned, as it is he who performs theprohibited act.”
Hence, this appeal.
We agree with the CSC thatrespondent Pedro O. Dacoycoy was guilty of nepotism and correctly meted out the penaltyof dismissal from the service.At this point, we have necessarily to resolve thequestion of the party adversely affected who maytake an appeal from an adverse decision of theappellate court in an administrative civil servicedisciplinary case. There is no question thatrespondent Dacoycoy may appeal to the Court of Appeals from the decision of the Civil ServiceCommission adverse to him.He was the respondent official meted out thepenalty of dismissal from the service. On appealto the Court of Appeals, the court required thepetitioner therein, here respondent Dacoycoy, toimplead the Civil Service Commission as publicrespondent as the government agency taskedwith the duty to enforce the constitutional andstatutory provisions on the civil service.Subsequently, the Court of Appeals reversed thedecision of the Civil Service Commission andheld respondent not guilty of nepotism. Whonow may appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court? Certainly notthe respondent, who was declared not guilty of the charge. Nor the complainant George P.Suan, who was merely a witness for thegovernment.Consequently, the Civil Service Commission hasbecome the party adversely affected by suchruling, which seriously prejudices the civil servicesystem. Hence, as an aggrieved party, it mayappeal the decision of the Court of Appeals tothe Supreme Court.By this ruling, we now expressly abandon andoverrule extant jurisprudence that “the phrase‘party adversely affected by the decision’ refersto the government employee against whom theadministrative 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 notincluded are “cases where the penalty imposedis suspension for not more then thirty (30) daysor fine in an amount not exceeding thirty days
Danniel AnchetaPage 1 of 1411/9/2009