Question Nepotism

generally, those who violate the rule on Nepotism are aware of the prohibition so they dont disclose the relationship. they dont even declare it in their SALN and PDS. as such, what evidenciary documents would suffice to establish the relationship within the 3rd degree between those 2 persons? is non-declaration of relatives in government service in the SALN and PDS constitute a violation of what specific CSC rule - dishonesty?

In the case of Flor Gupilan-Aguilar and Honore R. Hernandez vs. Ombudsman (G.R. No. 197307, February 26, 2014), the Supreme Court ruled that: The failure to file a truthful SALN puts in doubts the integrity of the officer and would normally amount to dishonesty. It should be emphasized, however, that mere misdeclaration in the SALN does not automatically amount to such an offense. Dishonesty requires malicious intent to conceal the truth or to make false statements; otherwise, the government employee may only liable for negligence, not for dishonesty. In addition, only when the accumulated wealth becomes manifestly disproportionate to the income of the public officer/employee and income from other sources, and the public officer/employee fails to properly account or explain these sources of income and acquisitions, does he or she become susceptible to dishonesty.

On the other hand, misrepresentation in the Personal Data Sheet (PDS) may constitute Dishonesty and/or Falsification of Official Document considering that PDS are public documents submitted under oath.

thanks.

on the other question, what documentary evidences would suffice to prove that the relationship is violative of Nepotism? would their respective PDS be enough then complainant will just allege Nepotism? is a brother-in-law be within the 3rd degree affinity? if ever, assuming that the involved person is a Manager, where is the appropriate venue o file the case - office, CSC or Ombudsman?

Aside from PDS and SALN, the birth certificate can also be used to establish relationship and you may also submit an affidavit of your witness to establish the same with supporting documents.

The brother-in-law is second degree by affinity. Violation of which constitutes Serious Dishonesty.

thanks.

but kindly clarify, which one is Serious Dishonesty? - the failure to declare the relationship? so aside from Nepotism, assuming it can be established and supported by documents, that person can also be charged for Serious Dishonesty?

so are there now levels of Dishonesty? isnt it just Dishonesty which is considered a Grave Offense where the penalty for first offense is Dismissal?

Notably, an appointment issued in violation of the law on nepotism may be recalled.

Section 3 of Resolution No. 06-0538, serious dishonesty comprises the following acts:

Section 3. Serious Dishonesty. – The presence of any one of the following attendant circumstances in the commission of the dishonest act would constitute the offense of Serious Dishonesty:

a. The dishonest act causes serious damage and grave prejudice to the government.

b. The respondent gravely abused his authority in order to commit the dishonest act.

c. Where the respondent is an accountable officer, the dishonest act directly involves property, accountable forms or money for which he is directly accountable and the respondent shows an intent to commit material gain, graft and corruption.

d. The dishonest act exhibits moral depravity on the part of the respondent.

e. The respondent employed fraud and/or falsification of official documents in the commission of the dishonest act related to his/her employment.

f. The dishonest act was committed several times or in various occasions.

g. The dishonest act involves a Civil Service examination, irregularity or fake Civil Service eligibility such as, but not limited to, impersonation, cheating and use of crib sheets.

h. Other analogous circumstances. (Emphasis supplied)

Section 4. The presence of any one of the following attendant circumstances in the commission of the dishonest act would constitute the offense of Less Serious Dishonesty:

a. The dishonest act caused damage and prejudice to the government which is not so serious as to qualify under the immediately preceding classification.

b. The respondent did not take advantage of his/her position in committing the dishonest act.

c. Other analogous circumstances.

Simple dishonesty, on the other hand, comprises the following offenses:

Section 5. The presence of any of the following attendant circumstances in the commission of the dishonest act would constitute the offense of Simple Dishonesty:

a. The dishonest act did not cause damage or prejudice to the government.

b. The dishonest act had no direct relation to or does not involve the duties and responsibilities of the respondent.

c. In falsification of any official document, where the information falsified is not related to his/her employment.

d. That the dishonest act did not result in any gain or benefit to the offender.

e. Other analogous circumstances. (Emphasis supplied)