EN BANC
|
OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, - versus - Respondent. |
|
A.M. No. P-05-2004
(Formerly
OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2086-P) Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, REYES, and LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, JJ. Promulgated: March
14, 2008 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PER CURIAM:
Before this Court is an
administrative case for Dishonesty against Lourdes F. Bermejo, Court
Stenographer II, stationed at the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC),
On January 20, 2004, then Court
Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.[1]
received a letter from Consolacion C. Santos, Director IV of the Civil Service
Commission (CSC) Regional Office No. 3, San Fernando, Pampanga, referring to
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) an undated letter from a “concerned
citizen” accusing Bermejo of using another name in taking her Civil Service
Eligibility Examination, while another person took the same exam using
Bermejo’s name. Attached to the letter is a Memorandum dated August 14, 2003 of
Nora S. Castro, Chief Personnel Specialist of the same CSC regional office,
reporting that upon verification of the pictures attached to the anonymous
letter and that of the Picture Seat Plan used during the exam, the person who
purportedly impersonated Bermejo and the picture of the person in the seat plan
using the name of Bermejo was the same person. The letter also states that
because of this impersonation,
In an Indorsement dated
Subsequently, on
In her reply,
After investigation, the OCA
submitted its evaluation and recommendation,[2]
stating thus:
EVALUATION: The focal issue here
is factual – i.e., whether or not another person actually took the Civil
Service Commission Sub-Professional eligibility test at San Fernando, Pampanga
on 27 May 1998, using the name Lourdes F. Bermejo. In the affirmative, the
corollary legal issue proceeds – i.e., whether or not it constitutes dishonesty
as would merit a finding of administrative liability on the part of respondent.
At
bar is an anonymous complaint, which respondent suspects is the handiwork of her
husband’s [“]other woman[.”] In evidence is a certified copy of the Seat Plan
of the examination concerned. Said document is of public record and indicates
that it was duly checked and certified by the room examiner as well as
counter-checked by the supervising examiner. The same indubitably bears out a
different person appearing to take the exam using the name Lourdes F. Bermejo,
whereas the real Lourdes F. Bermejo (whose picture matches the respondent’s) is
the one seated beside her. Respondent fails to overcome this evidence. Aside
from the presumption of regularity in the execution of official documents,
respondent in her two letters did not categorically deny the genuineness and
due execution of the Seat Plan. Instead, she impliedly admitted the same by her
defense that she could not anymore locate the person appearing atop her name.
We
note that it took more than five (5) years for the supposed “concerned citizen”
to assail the anomaly, and that the alleged motive imputed to complainant
probably holds water. However, these, at best, are merely persuasive,
circumstantial, and do not suffice to discount an evidence which tend directly
to prove the fact in issue.
Coming
to the next issue, it is our considered opinion that the circumstances
constitute dishonesty, given the following considerations:
1)
Respondent’s insistent line is that she actually took
the exam – which is misleading since she indeed took the same – but she kept
mum on that (sic) she let another person use her name in taking the civil
service examination;
2)
Respondent asserts that the person who purportedly took
the exam using the name Lourdes F. Bermejo was her husband’s childhood peer who
is now allegedly serving sentence for adultery and whose locality of origin was
razed by fire. How she was able to figure out the details of said person, when
she only supposedly met her briefly during [the] exam that took place more than
five years ago, at a far place where respondent was a complete stranger, is
suspect;
3)
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. 95-3964, 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 Picture Seat Plan. In cases where the
examinee does not look like the person in the picture submitted and attached on
(sic) the PSP, the examiner will not allow the said person to take the
examination (CSC Resolution No. 95-5195, Taguinay, Ma. Theresa).
Hence,
it is clear that somebody else took the CSC exam for respondent Lourdes F.
Bermejo. For her to deny it and actually reap the benefits of passing the same,
when in fact somebody else took it for her, constitutes dishonesty.
In
similar cases, the Honorable Court is consistent in imposing the stern penalty
of dismissal, pursuant to Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292. [Pls. see: CSC vs. Zenaida T.
Sta. Ana, A.M. No. P-03-1696 (
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully
submitted for consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that:
1.
the instant complaint be docketed as a regular
administrative matter; and
2. respondent Lourdes F. Bermejo, (sic) be found guilty of dishonesty and accordingly DISMISSED as Court Stenographer II, MTCC, Puerto Princesa City, with forfeiture of all her retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
The OCA’s recommendation is
well-taken.
This Court has had occasion to rule
on similar cases in the past. In Civil
Service Commission v. Sta. Ana,[3]
the Court found, thus:
After a thorough review of the matter, the Court finds that respondent is indeed guilty of dishonesty. An examination of respondent’s Personal Data Sheet reveals that her signature and picture on it are different from those in her CAT Application and Picture Seat Plan. Respondent attributes such discrepancy to “unknown persons who may have been committing such anomaly and irregularity in the examination procedure of the CSC.” However, this Court agrees with the observation of the executive judge that the irregularity should not be attributed to the CSC which had no motive in tampering with such documents. Even if such irregularity was attributable to error or oversight, respondent did not present any proof that it occurred during the examination and, thus, the CSC officials who supervised the exam enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duty. Besides, for the CSC to commit such a mistake - mixing up the pictures and signatures of examinees - was unlikely due to the strict procedures it follows during civil service examinations. In a similar case, this Court approved the findings of the CSC regarding procedures during examinations:
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).
Thus, the irregularity in respondent’s Personal Data Sheet, CAT Application and Picture Seat Plan cannot be attributed to error on the CSC’s part. It is clear that somebody else took the CSC exam for respondent Sta. Ana.
For respondent to claim that she herself took the CSC exam when in fact somebody else took it for her constitutes dishonesty.
On the other hand, in Donato v. Civil Service Commission Regional
Office No. 1,[4]
Alejandro Donato, Jr. was charged with dishonesty and falsification of public
documents for representing himself as Gil Arce and taking the civil service
exam under that name. The CSC and the Court of Appeals both found that the
picture of Donato appeared on the Picture Seat Plan on top of the name Gil
Arce. On the other hand, Arce admitted that he might have mistakenly submitted
Donato’s picture during the exam. The Court rejected Donato’s claim that the
case was merely the handiwork of his former principal who allegedly had an axe
to grind against him in the face of positive evidence against him and Arce.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the dismissal of both Arce and Donato.
In the case at bar, respondent
Respondent also fails to refute the documentary evidence
against her. It is a settled rule in our jurisdiction that the duly
accomplished form of the Civil Service is an official document of the
Commission, which, by its very nature, is considered in the same category as
that of a public document, admissible in evidence without need of further
proof. As an official document, the entries thereof made in the course of
official duty are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.[5]
Instead, respondent tries to support her
arguments with documents of her own. Unfortunately, the evidence she adduces does
not negate the veracity of the CSC’s Picture Seat Plan. Worse, these documents even
strengthen the case against her. The picture in her passport is that of the
person whose name in the Seat Plan is indicated as Julieta M. Padrones, who
happens to be seated beside the person purportedly named Lourdes F. Bermejo.
It is difficult to believe that
respondent could not have noticed that her picture was put on top of a
different name and that her name was accompanied by the picture of another
person. There was a space provided for the signature of the examinee. Thus,
respondent could not have missed that she was signing – if indeed she was
signing her own name –
the box with a different picture. She proffers no sufficient explanation for
this discrepancy.
In Donato, this Court quoted with approval the CSC’s findings, to wit:
In the offense of impersonation, there are always two persons involved. The offense cannot prosper without the active participation of both persons (CSC Resolution No. 94-6582). Further, by engaging or colluding with another person to take the test in his behalf and thereafter by claiming the resultant passing rate as his, clinches the case against him. In cases of impersonation, the Commission has consistently rejected claims of good faith, for “it is contrary to human nature that a person will do (impersonation) without the consent of the person being impersonated.” (CSC resolution No. 94-0826)[6]
Finally, respondent’s allegations
fail to controvert the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties of the CSC personnel. The Court has noted in previous cases the
procedure followed during the conduct of the Civil Service Exams, as quoted by
the OCA in its evaluation.[7]
Respondent does not even allege that the CSC Regional Office No. 3 personnel
who administered the exam departed from this established procedure or that any
irregularity attended the conduct of the exam.
Dishonesty is defined as intentionally
making a false statement on any material fact, or practicing or attempting to
practice any deception or fraud in securing his examination, appointment or
registration.[8] Dishonesty is a serious offense
which reflects a person’s character and exposes the moral decay which virtually
destroys his honor, virtue and integrity. It is a malevolent act that has no
place in the judiciary, as no other office in the government service exacts a
greater demand for moral righteousness from an employee than a position in the
judiciary.[9]
We conclude that there is substantial
evidence to hold that respondent committed the act of dishonesty imputed to
her. Under the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[10] dishonesty
is classified as a grave offense punishable by dismissal for the first offense.
WHEREFORE, the
foregoing premises considered, respondent LOURDES
F. BERMEJO is found GUILTY of dishonesty and DISMISSED from the service, with
forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with
prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government,
including government-owned or controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
|
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice
|
RENATO
C. CORONA
Associate Justice
|
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice
|
|
ADOLFO S.
AZCUNA Associate Justice |
DANTE O.
TINGA Associate Justice |
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
|
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
RUBEN T.
REYES Associate Justice |
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
[1] Now an Associate Justice of this
Court.
[2] Rollo, pp. 1-4.
[3] 450 Phil. 59, 67-68 (2003).
[4] G.R. No. 165788,
[5]
[6]
[7] Supra note 1.
[8] Concerned Citizen
v. Gabral, A.M. No. P-05-2098,
[9] Re: Spurious
Certificate of Eligibility of Tessie G. Quires, Regional Trial Court, Office of
the Clerk of Court, Quezon City, A.M. No. 05-5-268-RTC, May 4, 2006, 489
SCRA 349, 351.
[10] CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19-99.