EN BANC
ELMER R. BARTOLATA, A.M. No. P-02-1638
Regional Director,
Civil Service
Commission,
Present:
Region XI,
Complainant, PANGANIBAN, C.J.,
PUNO,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO MORALES,
CALLEJO, SR.,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
FELICIA C. JULATON, CHICO-NAZARIO,
Clerk of Court, and GARCIA,
and
JUANITA G. TAPIC, VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Court Interpreter II,
Municipal Trial Court in
Cities,
Respondents. July 6, 2006
x - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -x
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
This administrative case originated from a brief
letter-complaint sent to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Regional Office in Davao City, denouncing
respondents Felicia C. Julaton (“Julaton”), Clerk of Court, and
Juanita G. Tapic
(“Tapic”), Court Interpreter II, of the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities (MTCC),
Acting
on the information contained in the letter-complaint, CSC Regional Director
Elmer R. Bartolata (“Director Bartolata”)
verified the records of his office and established that “a certain Felicia C. Julaton submitted her application to take the [Civil
Service] Professional Examination” in 1989 and “was assigned to Examination
Room No. 65 of the Digos National High School, Digos, Davao del Sur.” Director Bartolata found that the pictures of “Felicia C. Julaton” on the application form[2] to take the civil service examination
and on the picture-seat plan[3] did not in any way resemble the
picture appearing on the appointment[4] of Julaton
dated
Director
Bartolata investigated further and discovered that
the pictures of “Felicia C. Julaton” on the
application form and the picture-seat plan bore a striking resemblance to the
picture of Tapic on her PDS[5] accomplished in 1979. One of the
accusations in the letter-complaint was that Tapic,
“upon a special exchange of financial favors,” agreed to take the examination
by representing herself as Julaton.
Hence,
this complaint against respondents for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
In
its 1st Indorsement dated
Respondents
filed separate Comments, but both attached a Joint Affidavit executed by
Lourdes Calpo, Nilfa Cañada, and Nida Badua on
In
her Comment dated
In
her Comment dated
a) She did not submit neither did she authorize
anybody to submit an application to take the [Civil Service] Professional
Examination x x x to the
Office of the Civil Service Commission;
x x x x
c) x x x it follows therefore, that
the pictures pasted on the application form (Annex “B”) and the pictures in the
Seat Plan (Annex “C”) would not, in any way resemble to (sic) that picture on
the face of her Appointment dated March 18, 1974;
x x x x
e)
Furthermore, because she did not authorize anybody to apply and take the Civil
Service Examination for and in her behalf, it is therefore logical that the
signatures appearing therein would not be the same;
f) x x x x
x x
x respondent is the incumbent Branch Clerk of Court
of the Municipal Trial [C]ourt in Cities, Branch [3] having been appointed to
the said position since July 1, 1983 and she [was] attested to as “permanent”
by the Supreme Court on July 1, 1988. As such, this Career Civil Service Examination
is not needed in her position to make her appointment permanent. In fact, she
did not, in one way or another claimed (sic) to have passed such examination
neither did she ever use nor avail of the said eligibility. Not even in her biodata did she ever indicate therein that she passed such
examination.[6]
On
On
The
OCA found respondents’ defense deserving of scant consideration. The OCA
recommended that respondents be held liable as charged, with Julaton being meted out the penalty of dismissal. Tapic having resigned from the service effective
We
adopt the findings and recommendation of the OCA, except for the recommended
penalty.
Julaton would simply want the Court to believe that the
sender of the letter-complaint was motivated by malice and only intended to
embarrass her. However, the records
speak for themselves. Julaton claimed that she knew
nothing about the application made in her name, yet even she acknowledged that
the pictures and signatures on the examination documents were not her own.
No
motive to cause this irregularity can be imputed to the CSC. The strict
procedures of the CSC afford almost no chance for a mix-up of the pictures and
signatures of the examinees. In CSC v. Sta. Ana, this Court had occasion to observe:
It
should be stressed that as a matter of procedure, the room examiners assigned
to supervise the conduct of a Civil Service examination closely examine the
pictures submitted and affixed on the Picture Seat Plan (CSC Resolution No.
95-3694, Obedencio, Jaime A.). The examiners
carefully compare the appearance of each of the examinees with the person in
the picture submitted and affixed on the PSP. In cases where the examinee does
not look like the person in the picture submitted and attached on the PSP, the
examiner will not allow the said person to take the examination (CSC Resolution
No. 95-5195, Taguinay, Ma. Theresa).[7]
In
that case, respondent Sta. Ana was charged with dishonesty when verification of
the records of the CSC showed that the signature and picture on her PDS bore no
resemblance to those found in her application to take the civil service
examination and on the picture-seat plan. Respondent was dismissed from her position as Court
Stenographer and disqualified from future employment in any government agency
or instrumentality.
Similarly,
in Cruz v. CSC,[8] petitioners Cruz and Paitim were penalized with dismissal when the CSC
established that the pictures of Cruz on her application and on the
picture-seat plan showed a different person when compared with pictures she had
submitted on previous civil service examinations. Furthermore, the pictures
purporting to be that of Cruz appeared to be the pictures of her officemate Paitim. Echoing the findings of the CSC, the Court therein
held that the offense of impersonation could not have prospered without the
active participation of both petitioners, thus,
both were held administratively liable.
In
the present case, it is indisputable that someone else took the civil service
examination for Julaton and obtained for her a
passing rate of 81.61%. Whether she actually used such eligibility to her
benefit is not the Court’s concern. As reasoned by the OCA, persons may act for
reasons known only to them. Indeed, Julaton declared
that she never availed of this eligibility, but she failed to provide any
supporting evidence.
From
a review of the records, the Court is convinced that Tapic
impersonated Julaton. If, as Tapic
claims, the signature and picture on the application form and seat plan were
approved by Geverola, it only means that the person
who actually sat during the examinations matched the pictures on the seat plan
and application form. Thus, Tapic’s sole defense begs
the question of whether the “correct signature and picture” are truly that of Julaton and not of Tapic, or of
any other person for that matter. Curiously,
Tapic
agreed with the
finding of the
CSC that the pictures of “Felicia C. Julaton”
resembled the picture on Tapic’s PDS, yet she offered
no explanation on how this situation could have come about.
Respondents’
entire evidence consists of their respective Comments which contain general
denials and bare claims of ignorance.
Respondents could have endeavored to show that an irregularity occurred
in the examination or filing process of the CSC but they failed to do so.
In administrative proceedings, the
quantum of proof required to establish liability is not reasonable doubt but
only substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.[9]
We hold that complainant has sufficiently discharged the burden.
CSC
Memorandum Circular No. 15, series of 1991, provides:
An act which includes the
procurement and/or use of fake/spurious civil service eligibility, the giving
of assistance to ensure the commission or procurement of the same, cheating, collusion, impersonation, or any other anomalous act
which amounts to any violation of the Civil Service examination, has been categorized
as a grave offense of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct or Conduct Prejudicial to
the Best Interest of the Service.[10] (Emphasis supplied)
The scheme perpetrated by respondents
was successfully concealed for almost twelve years and may never have been
revealed were it not for the anonymous complaint. Laid out in the open,
respondents’ machinations reflect their dishonesty and lack of integrity,
rendering them unfit to maintain their positions as public servants and
employees of the judiciary.
An
act of dishonesty is punishable by dismissal for the first offense.[11] Such extreme punishment may be
imposed in this case, because dishonesty reflects on the fitness of the officer
or employee to continue in office and on the discipline and morale of the
service.[12] Dishonesty is a serious offense which reflects on the
person’s character and exposes the moral decay which virtually destroys his
honor, virtue, and integrity.[13]
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondents Felicia
C. Julaton and Juanita G. Tapic,
of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
In
view of the resignation of respondent Tapic on 1 July
2001, the Court FINES her P25,000, and orders the forfeiture of all her
retirement benefits except for accrued leave credits, with prejudice to
reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government including
government-owned or controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice |
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate
Justice |
RENATO C.
CORONA
Associate Justice |
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice |
|
ROMEO J.
CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S.
AZCUNA
Associate Justice |
|
DANTE O.
TINGA Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
[1] The letter-complaint was treated
by the CSC as an anonymous complaint although the words “Lourdes Calpo,” “Nimfa,” and “Nida” were written at the bottom of the letter. It appears
that respondents had co-employees in the MTCC bearing the names Lourdes Calpo, Nilfa Cañada,
and Nida Badua, but the
identity of the sender was never confirmed.
[2] Annex “B,” Application for
Examination with Application Number 1711.
[3] Annex “C,” Picture-Seat Plan of
the Civil Service Professional Examinations done on
[4] Annex “D,” Appointment of Felicia
C. Julaton as Court Bailiff of the
[6] Rollo, pp. 25-26.
[7]
450 Phil. 59, 68 (2003), citing Cruz v. CSC, 422 Phil. 236, 245
(2001).
[8]
422 Phil. 236 (2001).
[9]
Boyboy v. Yabut,
449 Phil. 664, 670 (2003).
[10] As cited in CSC v. Cayobit, G.R. No. 145737,
[11] Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (Resolution No. 991936 of the CSC), which
took effect on
[12] Alabastro
v. Moncada, Sr., A.M. No. P-04-1887,