A.M. No. P-21-015, April 27, 2021.
RE: ALLEGED DISHONESTY AND GRAVE MISCONDUCT COMMITTED BY NESTOR D. BULAONG, COURT STENOGRAPHER I, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, SAN ANTONIO, NUEVA ECIJA.

FACTS

The Civil Service Commission (CSC) referred an administrative case to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against Nestor D. Bulaong, Court Stenographer I of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct. The case stemmed from the Career Service Professional Examination held on December 17, 1995, in Malolos, Bulacan. Bulaong claimed to have taken the exam and earned a rating of 88.01%, which led to his appointment. However, the CSC’s investigation, initiated by a Formal Charge dated September 17, 1996, alleged that Bulaong caused another person to take the examination in his place. This was discovered due to glaring differences between Bulaong’s photograph and signature in his Personal Data Sheets (PDS) and those on the examination’s seat plan. Bulaong denied the allegations in an Answer/Counter-Affidavit and requested a formal investigation. After initial hearings were postponed, the CSC took no further action until referring the case to the Judiciary via a letter dated December 26, 2013, as Bulaong was a court employee. The OCA directed Bulaong to comment on the allegations on two separate occasions, but he failed to comply.

ISSUE

Whether or not Nestor D. Bulaong is guilty of Dishonesty warranting dismissal from the service.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Nestor D. Bulaong GUILTY of Dishonesty and DISMISSED him from the service. The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the OCA. The CSC’s investigation categorically showed that Bulaong did not personally take the Career Service Professional Examination. The signatures and photographs on his PDS were completely different from those on the examination seat plan, indicating impersonation. The Court held that dishonesty, defined as intentionally making a false statement or practicing deception to secure examination, registration, or appointment, is a serious charge. Bulaong’s mere denial without proof was a weak defense, and his failure to file a comment with the OCA bolstered the suspicion of guilt. The active participation of both Bulaong and the impersonator was inferred, as the scheme would not have been possible without his knowledge and permission, and he benefited from the passing result. As a court employee, Bulaong failed to meet the high standards of honesty and integrity required. His dismissal is with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reinstatement or appointment to any public office.