AM P 03 1696; (April, 2003) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-03-1696, April 30, 2003
Civil Service Commission vs. Zenaida T. Sta. Ana, Court Stenographer I, MCTC, Quezon-Licab, Nueva Ecija
FACTS
The Civil Service Commission (CSC) Regional Office No. 3 filed an administrative complaint against respondent Zenaida T. Sta. Ana, a Court Stenographer I, for dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The charge stemmed from her misrepresentation that she personally took and passed the Career Service Professional Examination Computer Assisted Test (CAT) on September 16, 1998. The CSC discovered that the photograph and signature on respondent’s CAT application form and the official Picture Seat Plan from the examination date were markedly different from those on her subsequently filed Personal Data Sheet, indicating that another individual had taken the examination in her stead.
In her defense, Sta. Ana claimed she had no knowledge of any irregularity, presented a Certificate of Eligibility, and suggested she might be a victim of an anomaly within the CSC’s examination procedures. The case was referred for investigation to Executive Judge Napoleon T. Sta. Romana, who, after evaluating the evidence including the documentary exhibits and testimony from a CSC representative, found the respondent guilty and recommended her dismissal from the service.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Zenaida T. Sta. Ana is administratively liable for dishonesty.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is guilty of dishonesty. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the investigating judge and the CSC. The evidentiary disparity between the photographs and signatures on the examination records and the respondent’s Personal Data Sheet conclusively established that an impostor had taken the civil service examination for her. Her defense of being an unwitting victim of a systemic anomaly was deemed unsubstantiated and untenable.
The legal logic rests on the paramount standard of integrity required of all judiciary personnel. The Court emphasized that every court employee must exemplify honesty to preserve the judiciary’s integrity and public trust. By falsely claiming personal examination attendance and eligibility, Sta. Ana committed a deliberate act of dishonesty. The Court cited the analogous case of Cruz and Paitim vs. CSC, where dismissal was imposed for identical misconduct. Applying the Civil Service Rules, dishonesty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal with accessory penalties, including forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government agency. Accordingly, respondent Zenaida T. Sta. Ana was DISMISSED from service.