REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

QUEZON CITY )

FOR: NEPOTISM; CORRUPT PRACTICES

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

We, __________, ________________, ________________, all of legal age,

Filipino, and with office address at ____________________________, after having
been duly sworn to in accordance with law hereby depose and state that:

1. We are employees of the XXX (“University”) and we are lodging the

instant complaint against Respondent, ____________________, currently holding the
position of _____________________ at the University;

2. The Respondent has put herself in a direct conflict of interest and in

violation of various law prohibiting nepotism by failing to disclose and take mitigating
actions during the application, hiring, and current employment of son, XXX in a
department that directly reports to her;

3. Under Sec. 9, Rule XIII (Prohibitions), Revised Omnibus Rules on

Appointments and Other Personnel Actions (CSC MC No. 40, s. 1998), the following are
the rules on Nepotism:

Sec. 9. No appointment in the national, provincial, city or municipal

governments or 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 person
exercising immediate supervision over the appointee.

Unless otherwise provided by law, the word "relative" and the members of
the family refereed to are those related within the third degree either of
consanguinity or of affinity.

In the local government career service, the prohibition extends to the

relatives of the appointing or recommending authority, within the fourth
civil degree of consanguinity or affinity.

The following are exempted from the operation of the rules on nepotism:
a. persons employed in a confidential capacity
b. teachers
c. physicians
d. members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines

The nepotism rule covers all kinds of appointments whether original,

promotional, transfer and reemployment regardless of status including
casuals and contractuals except consultants.

Similar provisions are provided under Book V, Title I(A), Chapter 8, Section 59 of
Executive Order No. 292, also known as the Administrative Code of 1987, prohibiting
nepotic appointments or those made in favor of a relative of the appointing or
recommending authority, or of the chief of bureau or office, or of the persons
exercising immediate supervision over the appointee.

Page 1 of 4
The word “relative” under the said Code refers to those related within the third degree
of consanguinity (relationship by blood) or affinity (relationship by marriage) such as
spouse (1st degree), children (1st degree), sibling (2nd degree), nephew and niece
(3rd degree), and uncle and aunt (3rd degree).

The foregoing are intended to implement Article IX(B), Section 2(2) of the 1987
Philippine Constitution which states, “Appointments in the civil service shall be made
only according to merit and fitness to be determined, as far as practicable, and, except
to positions which are policy-determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical, by
competitive examination.”

Lastly, Republic Act 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees, provides that no public official shall extend favors to
their relatives on account of their office, including making appointments to positions
within which they have control or influence:

Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. - (A)

Every public official and employee shall observe the following as
standards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official
duties:

XXX XXX XXX

(c) Justness and sincerity. - Public officials and employees shall remain
true to the people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity
and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the
underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and
shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs,
public policy, public order, public safety and public interest. They shall not
dispense or extend undue favors on account of their office to their
relatives whether by consanguinity or affinity except with respect to
appointments of such relatives to positions considered strictly
confidential or as members of their personal staff whose terms are
coterminous with theirs.

4. Applying the foregoing laws, the Supreme Court, in Civil Service

Commission versus Dacoycoy (G.R. No. 135805, 29 April 1999), ruled that “it is
immaterial who the appointing or recommending authority is. To constitute a violation
of the law, it suffices that an appointment is extended or issued in favor of a
relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of the chief of the
bureau or office, or the person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee.”
In said case, the respondent vocational school administrator was charged with nepotism
because his direct report appointed his two (2) sons as driver and utility worker in the
school.

5. The instant case falls squarely in the above-cited case of CSC vs.
Dacoycoy. Mr. Lyle Ronald Chi Yap was hired as Administrative Officer I as evidenced
by the University verified List of reps and Administrative Staff as of March 2019, labeled
as Exhibit “A” and attached to this complaint;

6. XXX directly reports to _______________ holding the position of

________________, who in turn directly reports to respondent _________________,
the head of the Division. Given this, the Respondent clearly has influence over the
hiring and performance evaluation of son, XXX , given that son’s direct line manager
reports to Respondent.

Page 2 of 4
 7. In view of the foregoing, we are charging the Respondent for violating the
above-mentioned laws on Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices via engaging in nepotism,
and praying for the rightful consequence against her under existing civil service rules
and laws, including dismissal from service.
.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have signed this affidavit this ____ day of _____in
Quezon City, Metro Manila.

Affiant Affiant

Affiant Affiant

Affiant Affiant

VERIFICATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES}

METRO MANILA } SS

The undersigned, after having been sworn in accordance with law, depose and
state that:

1. We are the complainants in the instant case;

2. We have caused the filing and preparation of the foregoing complaint;

3. We have read and understood the contents thereof and the same are true and
correct to the best of our knowledge and belief; and

4. We have not commenced any action or proceeding involving the same issues
before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any Tribunal or Agency and there is no
such pending action with the said Courts or Agency; and that We undertake to report to
the corresponding Court the existence of such case within five (5) days from discovery
thereof.

Page 3 of 4
 Affiant Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of December 2019. I

hereby certify that I have personally examined the affiants and am satisfied that they
voluntarily executed and understood their affidavit.

Doc. No. ___

Page No. ___
Book No. ___
Series of ___.

Page 4 of 4