|
LOURDES CLAVITE-VIDAL, DIRECTOR IV,
REGION 10, CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, Complainant, -
versus - NORAIDA A. AGUAM, COURT STENOGRAPHER I, SHARIA CIRCUIT COURT,
GANASSI-BINIDAYAN-BAGAYAWAN, LANAO DEL SUR, Respondent. |
|
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM:
We resolve another case of impersonation in taking a Civil
Service examination. The Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) agreed with the Investigating Judge that respondent
court stenographer Noraida A. Aguam is guilty of dishonesty and should be
dismissed from the service.
First, the antecedent facts and the result of the
investigation.
In a letter[1] dated August 13, 2009,
Director IV Lourdes Clavite-Vidal of the Civil Service Commission (CSC)
referred to the OCA for appropriate action the records of respondent
Aguam. Director Vidal stated that a person
purporting to be Aguam took the Career Service Subprofessional[2] examination held on
December 1, 1996 at Room No. 5, City Central School, Cagayan de Oro City, and
got a grade of 80% in the examination.
But upon verification of Aguam's eligibility, the CSC found that Aguams
picture and handwriting on her January 14, 1997 Personal Data Sheet differ from
those on the Picture Seat Plan during the examination.
Our esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice Jose P. Perez, in his
capacity as then Court Administrator, required Aguam to file her comment to
Director Vidals letter.[3]
In her comment[4] dated January 19, 2010,
Aguam said that she personally took and passed the aforesaid examination. Aguam claimed that her picture on the Picture
Seat Plan is an old picture taken when she was still in high school and single,
while her picture on the Personal Data Sheet was taken after giving birth to
four children and suffering another miscarriage. Aguam also claimed that the signatures on the
two documents are hers and were not made by two different persons. Her signature on the Picture Seat Plan was
signed under pressure during the examination.
On the other hand, she signed the Personal Data Sheet without pressure
and having the leisure of time.
The case was then referred to Judge Rasad G. Balindong for
investigation. After due proceedings,
Judge Balindong submitted his investigation report finding Aguam guilty of
serious dishonesty and recommending Aguams dismissal from the service. Judge Balindong said that during the May 24,
2011 hearing, he approached Aguam to observe her physically and compare her
face with the pictures on the Picture Seat Plan and Personal Data Sheet. Judge Balindong found that the picture on the
Personal Data Sheet is that of Aguam while the one on the Picture Seat Plan is
not hers.[5] Judge Balindong also found that Aguam's
specimen signatures submitted before him were different from Aguam's purported
signature on the Picture Seat Plan.
Judge Balindong concluded that the signature on the Picture Seat Plan
and the one on the Personal Data Sheet were written by two different persons.[6] Judge Balindong opined that Aguams representation that
she herself took the examination when in fact somebody else took it for her
constitutes dishonesty.[7]
In its own evaluation report[8] dated November 29, 2011,
the OCA concurred with the findings of Judge Balindong and recommended that:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, we respectfully submit for the consideration of the Honorable
Court the recommendation that Noraida A. Aguam, Court Stenographer I, Shari'a
Circuit Court Ganassi-Binidayan-[B]agayawan, Lanao del Sur, be found GUILTY
of the administrative offense of DISHONESTY and be DISMISSED from
the service, with the accessory penalties of perpetual disqualification from government
service and forfeiture of all retirement benefits except leave credits already
accrued.[9]
We agree that Aguam is indeed guilty of
dishonesty.
The fact of impersonation was proven with certainty. Judge Balindong observed upon approaching
Aguam during a hearing that she is not the person whose picture was attached to
the Picture Seat Plan. This finding
debunks Aguam's claim that she attached her high school picture on the Picture
Seat Plan. The records also validate
Judge Balindongs finding that Aguams specimen signatures written on a piece
of paper[10] are starkly different from
Aguams supposed signature on the Picture Seat Plan.[11] Then there is the discernible difference in
Aguams handwriting and signature on the Personal Data Sheet[12]
and the impersonators handwriting and signature on the Picture Seat Plan. Taken together, the evidence leads to no
other conclusion than that somebody else took the examination using Aguams
identity.
We also affirm Judge Balindongs opinion that for Aguam to
assert that she herself took and passed the examination when in fact somebody
else took it for her constitutes dishonesty.[13]
It must be stressed that every employee of the Judiciary
should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty. Like any public servant, she must exhibit the
highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of her
official duties but also in her personal and private dealings with other
people, to preserve the courts good name and standing. The image of a court of justice is mirrored
in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel who work thereat, from
the judge to the lowest of its personnel.
Court personnel have been enjoined to adhere to the exacting standards of
morality and decency in their professional and private conduct in order to
preserve the good name and integrity of the courts of justice.[14] Here, Aguam failed to meet these stringent
standards set for a judicial employee and does not therefore deserve to remain
with the Judiciary.
Relatedly, we have consistently held that the proper penalty
to be imposed on employees found guilty of an offense of this nature is
dismissal from the service. In Cruz
v. Civil Service Commission,[15] Civil Service
Commission v. Sta. Ana,[16] and Concerned Citizen
v. Dominga Nawen Abad,[17] we dismissed the
employees found guilty of similar offenses.
In Cruz, Zenaida Paitim masqueraded as Gilda Cruz and took the
Civil Service examination in behalf of Cruz.
We said that both Paitim and Cruz merited the penalty of dismissal.[18] In Sta. Ana, somebody else took the
Civil Service examination for Sta. Ana.
We dismissed Sta. Ana for dishonesty.[19] In Abad, the evidence disproved Abads
claim that she personally took the examination.
We held that for Abad to assert that she herself took the examination
when in fact somebody else took it for her constitutes dishonesty. Thus, we dismissed Abad for her offense.[20] We find no reason to deviate from our
consistent rulings. Under Section
52(A)(1) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,
dishonesty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal for the first
offense. Under Section 58(a) of the same
rules, the penalty of dismissal carries with it cancellation of eligibility,
forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification for
reemployment in the government service.
The OCA properly excluded forfeiture of accrued leave credits, pursuant
to our ruling in Sta. Ana and Abad.[21]
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Noraida A. Aguam, Court
Stenographer I, Sharia Circuit Court, Ganassi-Binidayan-Bagayawan, Lanao del
Sur, LIABLE for dishonesty. She is hereby DISMISSED from the
service with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of all her retirement
benefits except her accrued leave credits, and with perpetual disqualification
for reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including
government-owned or controlled corporations.
This Resolution is immediately EXECUTORY.
SO ORDERED.
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Senior Associate Justice |
||||
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
|||
|
ARTURO D.
BRION Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA Associate Justice |
|||
|
LUCAS P.
BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARIANO C.
DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice |
|||
|
ROBERTO A.
ABAD Associate Justice |
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|||
|
(No Part) JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice |
(On official
leave) JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA Associate Justice |
|||
|
MARIA
LOURDES P. A. SERENO Associate Justice |
BIENVENIDO
L. REYES Associate Justice |
|||
|
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE Associate Justice |
||||
* No part.
** On official leave.
[1] Rollo, p. 2.
[2] Id. at 14.
[3] Id. at 20.
[4] Id. at 22-23.
[5] Id. at 217.
[6] Id.
[7] Id. at 218.
[8] Id. at 337-342.
[9] Id. at 342.
[10] Id. at 154.
[11] Id. at 119.
[12] Id. at 115-116.
[13] See Concerned Citizen v. Dominga Nawen Abad, A.M. No. P-11-2907, January 31, 2012, p. 3 and Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana, A.M. No. P-03-1696, April 30, 2003, 402 SCRA 49, 56.
[14] Id. at 4; id. at 56-57.
[15] G.R. No. 144464, November 27, 2001, 370 SCRA 650.
[16] Supra note 13.
[17] Supra note 13.
[18] Supra note 15 at 655.
[19] Supra note 13 at 56-57.
[20] Supra note 13 at 3, 5.
[21] Id. at 4; supra note 13 at 57.