A.M. No. 15-02-02-SCC, October 06, 2020
ALLEGED EXAMINATION IRREGULARITY COMMITTED BY COURT STENOGRAPHER I NORHATA A. ABUBACAR, SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURT, LUMBATAN, LANAO DEL SUR

FACTS

The Civil Service Commission (CSC) referred a preliminary investigation report to the Supreme Court concerning the civil service eligibility of Norhata A. Abubacar, Court Stenographer I. The report indicated that a person purporting to be Abubacar took the Career Service Sub-Professional Examination in November 1999. A comparison of the photograph attached to the examination picture seat plan and the photograph on Abubacar’s subsequent Personal Data Sheet (PDS) revealed a disparity in facial features and dissimilar signatures, strongly suggesting another person took the exam on her behalf. Based on this eligibility, Abubacar received a permanent appointment in 2000.
Abubacar repeatedly failed to comply with the Office of the Court Administrator’s directives to comment on the allegations, despite receiving orders and a show-cause directive from the Court. She eventually sought reconsideration, citing the Marawi crisis as the reason for her non-compliance, and was granted a final extension. The OCA, after investigation, found that a mole visible under Abubacar’s right eyebrow in all her official PDS pictures was absent in the picture on the CSC seat plan. It also noted the CSC’s guideline requiring pictures taken within six months of the exam application, rendering her claim of submitting a high school picture untenable.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Norhata A. Abubacar is administratively liable for Dishonesty.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Abubacar guilty of Dishonesty and imposed the penalty of dismissal. The legal logic rests on the conclusive evidence of impersonation and the gravity of the offense within the judiciary. The Court adopted the OCA’s findings, which established that another individual took the civil service examination for Abubacar. The definitive physical evidence was the absence of Abubacar’s distinctive facial mole in the examination seat plan photo, contrasted with its consistent presence in all her authenticated PDS photos. Her defense of submitting an old high school picture was invalidated by the CSC’s existing rule requiring recent photographs, a rule she circumvented.
The act of securing appointment through a fraudulently obtained eligibility constitutes dishonesty, a grave offense that undermines the integrity of the civil service and the judiciary. The Court emphasized that court personnel must uphold the highest standards of honesty and integrity. Her subsequent failure to properly explain the discrepancies and her initial disregard for Court orders further demonstrated a lack of the required candor. Following established jurisprudence and the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the penalty for such serious dishonesty is dismissal from service, with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government agency. No mitigating circumstances were found to warrant a lesser penalty.