AM SCc 10 13 P; (June, 2012) (Digest)
A.M. No. SCC-10-13-P; June 26, 2012
LOURDES CLAVITE-VIDAL, DIRECTOR IV, REGION 10, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Complainant, vs. NORAIDA A. AGUAM, COURT STENOGRAPHER I, SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURT, GANASSI-BINIDAYAN-BAGAYAWAN, LANAO DEL SUR, Respondent.
FACTS
The Civil Service Commission (CSC) referred the case to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) after discovering discrepancies in the records of respondent Noraida A. Aguam, a Court Stenographer I. The CSC found that the photograph and handwriting on the Picture Seat Plan from the December 1, 1996 Career Service Subprofessional examination differed significantly from those on Aguam’s subsequently filed Personal Data Sheet. This indicated that an impersonator likely took the examination on her behalf.
In her defense, Aguam claimed she personally took the exam. She argued the Picture Seat Plan photo was an old high school picture, while the Personal Data Sheet photo was taken after multiple pregnancies, accounting for the difference. She also attributed signature variations to the pressure of the exam setting versus the leisure of filing the data sheet. The case was investigated by Judge Rasad G. Balindong, who, after a hearing where he physically observed Aguam, concluded the person in the exam photo was not her and that the signatures were from two different individuals.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Noraida A. Aguam is administratively liable for dishonesty.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of dishonesty and ordered her dismissal. The Court affirmed the findings of the Investigating Judge and the OCA that the evidence conclusively proved impersonation. The direct observation by Judge Balindong that Aguam was not the person in the examination photograph definitively refuted her claim of merely using an old picture. Furthermore, the stark dissimilarities between the specimen signatures provided by Aguam and the signature on the Picture Seat Plan, coupled with handwriting disparities between the exam documents and her Personal Data Sheet, led to the inescapable conclusion that another person took the test for her.
Her false assertion that she personally took and passed the examination constitutes dishonesty, a grave offense under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases. The Court emphasized that judiciary personnel must uphold the highest standards of integrity, as their conduct reflects directly on the courts’ integrity. Consistent with jurisprudence, the penalty for such dishonesty is dismissal from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits), cancellation of eligibility, and perpetual disqualification from government reemployment. The Resolution is immediately executory.