EN BANC
CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-03-1696
April 30, 2003
-versus-
ZENAIDA T. STA.
ANA,
COURT STENOGRAPHER I,
MCTC, QUEZON-LICAB,
NUEVA ECIJA,
Respondent.
R E S O L U T I
O N
PER
CURIAM:
This is an administrative
matter for the dismissal of Zenaida Sta. Ana, Court Stenographer 1 of
the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Quezon-Licab, Nueva Ecija. Atty
Anicia Marasigan- de Lima, Director IV of the Civil Service Commission
(CSC) Regional Office No. 3, San Fernando, Pampanga, charged her with
dishonesty,
grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service
for misrepresenting that she took and passed the Career Service
Professional
Examination Computer Assisted Test (CAT) on September 16, 1998 when, in
truth and in fact, someone else took the examination for her. The CSC
found
that the picture and signature in respondent’s Personal Data Sheet were
different from those appearing in her CAT application and in the
Picture
Seat Plan both filed in the Examination and Placement Services Division
(EPSD) of the CSC.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The formal charge against
respondent read as follows:
1. That Zenaida
T. Sta. Ana has a proposed appointment in a government office in Manila;
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. That under
Item 19 of her Personal Data Sheet, Sta. Ana indicated that she passed
the Career Service Professional Examination (CAT) held at the Civil
Service
Commission Regional Office No. 3, San Fernando, Pampanga on September
16,
1998 with a rating of 84.86%;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. That Director
Arturo J. Panaligan of CSC-National Capital Judicial Region requested
from
this Office confirmation of the eligibility of Sta. Ana;
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. That
verification
from the Picture Seat Plan of the Examination and Placement Services
Division
(EPSD) of this Office showed that another person took the examination
in
behalf of Sta. Ana;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5. That the signature
and picture pasted in the duly accomplished Personal Data Sheet of
Zenaida
Sta. Ana differ from that appearing in the CAT application and in the
Picture
Seat Plan both filed in the EPSD of this Office;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
6. That on February
29, 2000, this Office issued an Order requiring Sta. Ana to comment
within
five (5) days from receipt why she should not be administratively
charged
for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prehjudical to the Best
Interest
of the Service;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
7. That the Order
was sent by this Office through registered mail and the same was duly
served
on March 23, 2000; and
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
8. That Sta.
Ana filed her comment to this Office (CSC) on March 30, 2000.[1]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent, in her
May 28, 2000 answer, stated the following:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. That when
she took the civil service examination for Career Service Professional
which was held at San Fernando, Pampanga on September 16, 1998, she
signed
an application for the said examination and submitted the requirements
to the Civil Service Commission;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. That subsequently,
she received a Certificate of Eligibility from the Chairman of the
Civil
Service Commission for the examination which was held on September 16,
1998 purportedly due to the fact that she received a rating of 84.86%;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. That at the
time of the receipt by her of the Certificate of Eligibility she had no
knowledge nor notice of any defect or infirmity in the result of her
examination;
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. That
subsequently,
she received a notification that she is being charged for Dishonesty,
Grave
Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Interest of the Service
allegedly
because it appears in the picture seat plan of the examination that
another
person took the examination in behalf of Mrs. Zenaida T. Sta. Ana;
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5. That in all
truth and candor, respondent hereby states that she has no knowledge as
to why it now appears that another person took the examination for her;
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
6. That when
she took the examination, she did it in all honesty and good faith and
with the primary intention of passing the same for purposes of entering
the government service and she would not do anything that would in one
way or another, destroy her dream of ultimately becoming a career
professional
in the government service;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
7. That under
the circumstances, all that she could probably say is that, the
changing
of the picture in the picture seat plan may have been done by persons
unknown
to her who may have been committing such anomaly or irregularity in the
examination procedure of the Civil Service Commission;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
8. That the respondent
hereby advances the information that such anomaly or irregularities may
have been actually existing in the examination procedure of the
commission
and that it only happens at this particular instance that she became a
victim of such irregularity;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
9. That as proof
and as part of her evidence, she is hereby submitting a Xerox copy of
the
Certificate of Eligibility given to her by the Chairman of the
commission;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
10. That she hereby
further reserves the presentation of oral and documentary evidence in
support
of her defense.[2]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Court Administrator
Presbitero J. Velasco forwarded the matter to Executive Judge Napoleon
T. Sta. Romana for formal investigation and recommendation. In his
report
submitted on March 25, 2002, Judge Sta. Romana found respondent guilty
of the charges against her and recommended her dismissal, based on his
findings:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Atty. Anicia Marasigan-de
Lima was subpoenaed to shed light on the complaint against the
respondent.
In representation of the Civil Service Commission, Atty. Jasmin Regino
testified in behalf of said Office on March 8, 2002 and submitted the
documents
in possession of the Legal Affairs Division in connection with a
similar
complaint before their Office. It appears that there is no resolution
by
their Office as of said date and is still waiting for a memorandum to
be
submitted by the respondent which was twenty (20) days from November 9,
2000 (sic) by Hearing Officer Dulce J. Cochon. No memorandum was
submitted.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The exhibits submitted
by the Civil Service Commission are the following:
Exhibit "A"
-
Formal Charge by the Civil Service Commission dated May 5, 2000;
Exhibit "B"
-
Order issued by the Civil Service Commission signed by Atty. Anicia
Marasigan-de
Lima, Director IV;
Exhibit "C"
-
Indorsement letter of Alma M. Tuazon, Chief Personnel Specialist,
Examination
and Placement Services Division, Civil
Service Commission, Regional Office No. 3, San Fernando, Pampanga;
Exhibit "D"
-
Examination Slip dated September 16, 1998 of Zenaida T. Sta. Ana;
Exhibit "E"
-
Personal Data Sheet of Zenaida T. Sta. Ana;
Exhibit "E-1"
–
signature of Zenaida T. Sta. Ana at the back;
Exhibit "F"
-
Certificate of Eligibility with date of release as September 16, 1998
in
the name of Zenaida T. Sta. Ana;
Exhibit "G"
-
Letter of Director Arturo Panaligan;
Exhibit "H"
-
Picture Seat Plan with examination date of September 16, 1998 at the
CSR
No. 3;
Exhibit "H-1"
-
No. 4 column with name and picture of Zenaida T. Sta. Ana; and
Exhibit "H-2"
-
the signature of Zenaida T. Sta. Ana;
Exhibit "I"
-
Comment of Zenaida T. Sta. Ana;
Exhibit "I-1"
-
page 2 of the Comment; and
Exhibit "I-2"
-
the signature of Zenaida T. Sta. Ana on page 2;
Exhibit "J"
-
the Answer of Zenaida T. Ana to the Formal Charge;
Exhibit "J-1" to J-4", series - the succeeding pages;
Exhibits "K" to "K-4", series - the Notices of Hearings issued by the
Civil
Service Commission on the person of Zenaida T. Sta. Ana;
Exhibits "L" and "L=1" -Appearances; the remarks thereon as Exhibit
"L-2";
and
Exhibit "M"
-
Letter of Zenaida T. Sta. Ana dated June 29, 2000.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondent opted
not to present testimonial evidence but only marked the following
exhibits
in her defense;
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Exhibit "1"
-
Answer of the respondent to the Formal Charge; "1-a" and "1-b" -
succeeding
pages thereof;
Exhibit "2"
-
The Certificate of Eligibility issued by the Civil Service Commission
to
the respondent;
Exhibit "3"
-
Personal Data Sheet of respondent Zenaida T. Sta. Ana; "3-a" - the
signature
of Zenaida T. Sta. Ana;
Exhibit "4"
-
Personal Data Sheet of the alleged substitute examinee; and
Exhibit "5"
-
Picture Seat Plan; "5-a" - portion showing the picture of the alleged
examinee;
and "5-b" - the signature of the alleged examinee.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is crystal clear
that in Exhibit "D" which is a common exhibit - Exhibit "4" for the
respondent,
a different picture of a person who took the examination appears which
is different from the appearance of respondent Zenaida T. Sta. Ana as
appearing
in Exhibit "E", which is Exhibit "3" for the respondent - Personal Data
Sheet. Also, in Exhibit "H" which is Exhibit "5" for the respondent,
the
Picture Seat Plan, Exhibit "5-a" shows also a different person who took
the examination for Zenaida T. Sta. Ana.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Exhibit "M", a letter-communication
by Zenaida T. Sta. Ana dated June 29, 2000, respondent entered a plea
of
"NO CONTEST" as shown in her stated (sic) in said letter-communication,
which reads as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x x
That for the sake
of
my peace of mind I hereby enter a plea of "no contest". It should not
be
construed however that I am admitting the misdemeanor being attributed
to me, it is only that I am a poor person and cannot afford the
services
of a lawyer.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Besides, by not
contesting
the case I would be spared further of the anxiety and sleepless nights
I am now experiencing.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In view of this, I
most humbly appear (sic) that the Regional Director and/or authorities
concerned shall consider me resigned from the service, to be effective,
if possible, at the close of office hours on June 30, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Very respectfully,
(Sgd.) ZENAIDA T.
STA.
ANA
(Respondent)
Quezon, Nueva Ecija
The Answer adopted by
the
respondent - Exhibit "1", paragraphs 7 and 8, states as follows:
7.
That
under the circumstances, all that she could probably say is that, the
changing
of the picture in the picture sheet plan may have been done by persons
unknown to her who may have been committing such anomaly or
irregularity
in the examination procedure of the Civil Service Commission;
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
8. That the
respondent
hereby advances the information that such anomaly or irregularities may
have been actually existing in the examination procedure of the
commission
and that it only happens at this particular instance that she became a
victim of such irregularity;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The irregularity, if
ever
there is any, should be attributed to the respondent and not to the
Civil
Service Commission. The Commission has no motive nor inclination to
cause
the irregularity in the examination procedure of said Commission. It is
clear based on the communications presented by Zenadia T. Sta. Ana that
she is guilty of the offense of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and
Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, by causing another
person
to take the examination in her behalf which resulted in her passing the
Civil Service Examination with a rating of 84.86%.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is, therefore, recommended
that the respondent Zenaida T. Sta. Ana of the MCTC, Quezon-Licab,
Nueva
Ecija, be dismissed from the service, with prejudice to holding any
other
position in the government service and forfeiture of all benefits.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The recommendation for
dismissal was concurred in by Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) Jose P.
Perez and approved by Court Administrator Velasco. According to DCA
Perez,
the executive judge was correct in concluding that there was no motive
on the part of the CSC to cause the irregularity which was the subject
matter of the case. DCA Perez further added that the records of the
case
and even the evidence submitted by respondent show that she was guilty
of the charges against her, thus the recommendation that respondent be
dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits
reemployment
in any branch and instrumentality of the government, including
government-owned
and controlled corporations.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We concur.cralaw:red
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,[4]
this Court approved the findings of the CSC regarding procedures during
examinations:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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. 95-51 95,
Taguinay,
Ma. Theresa)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For respondent to claim
that she herself took the CSC exam when in fact somebody else took it
for
her constitutes dishonesty. We have repeatedly ruled that:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Every employee of
the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and
honesty.
Like any public servant, he must exhibit the highest sense of honesty
and
integrity not only in the performance of his official duties but in his
personal and private dealings with other people, to preserve the
court’s
good name and standing. It cannot be overstressed that 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."[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent failed to
meet the stringent standards set for a judicial employee and does not
therefore
deserve to be part of the judiciary. In the case of Cruz and Paitim vs.
CSC,[6]
we found Cruz guilty of dishonesty when she misrepresented that she
took
the CSC Career Service Sub-Professional Exam when in fact it was her
officemate,
Paitim, the Municipal Treasurer of Norzagaray, Bulacan, who took the
exam
for her. Because of such dishonesty, both employees were dismissed from
the service. We find no reason to deviate from our previous ruling.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under the Civil Service
Rules,[7]
dishonesty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal which carries the
accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of
retirement
benefits [except leave credits pursuant to Rule 140, Section 11 (1)][8]
and disqualification from reemployment in the government service.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, respondent
Zenaida T. Sta. Ana is hereby found guilty of dishonesty and is hereby
DISMISSED as Court Stenographer 1, MCTC of Quezon-Licab, Nueva Ecija,
with
forfeiture of all her retirement benefits except her accrued leave
credits
and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of
the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and
Azcuna,
JJ.,
concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 10-11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Rollo, pp. 4-6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Rollo, pp. 64-67.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Cruz and Paitim vs. CSC, G.R. No. 144464, November 27, 2001.
[5]
Floria vs. Sunga, A.M. No. CA-01-10-PI, November 14, 2001.
[6]
Supra note 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of
Executive
Order 292chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Cabanatan vs. Molina, AM. No. P-01-1520, November 21, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |