A.M. NO. SCC-08-11-P, June 18, 2013
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Complainant, v. ISMAEL A. HADJI ALI, COURT STENOGRAPHER I, SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURT, TUBOD, LANAO DEL NORTE [FORMERLY A.M. NO. 04-9-03-SCC] (RE: FORMAL CHARGE BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION VS. ISMAEL A. HADJI ALI, COURT STENOGRAPHER I, SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURT, TUBOD, LANAO DEL NORTE), Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
Dear Director Panaligan:
This refers to your request for verification of the Career Service (Professional) eligibility of Mr. ISMAEL A. HADJI ALI, taken on May 11, 2000.
A perusal of the Picture Seat Plan (Copy enclosed for your reference) of the room where he took the examination reveals that his picture and signature are different from the one appearing in the Personal Data Sheet (PDS) attached to your request.
We therefore, do not confirm Mr. Hadji Ali's eligibility and shall take appropriate legal action against him.Very truly yours,
After thorough preliminary investigation, this Office finds that a prima facie case of Dishonesty exists against you, committed as follows:cralavvonlinelawlibraryThat you (true Ismael A. Hadji Ali), knowingly and unlawfully allowed somebody else to take the 11 May 2000 Career Service Examination (Professional) through the Computer-Assisted Test given in Zamboanga City, for and in your behalf, as shown in the attached machine copies of the Picture Seat Plan used during the aforesaid examination and your Personal Data Sheet accomplished on 22 February 2000.
CONTRARY TO CIVIL SERVICE LAW AND RULES.
x x x x(Sgd.)
ROGELIO C. LIMARE
x x x x
It is clear that the picture of the person and signature appearing on the Picture Seat Plan (Exhibit "A," Rollo, p. 35) do not resemble the picture and signature of the respondent as appearing in his Personal Data Sheet (Exhibit "B" and "B-3," Rollo, pp. 36-37). And the respondent does not really dispute this fact more so, in light of his allegation and which respondent would want us to believe that the picture pasted on the Picture Seat Plan must have been replaced by someone who wanted him removed. However, the undersigned has carefully examined the Picture Seat Plan, particularly the picture appearing on the space provided for the respondent, and found no indication whatsoever that the same has been tampered. As with the pictures of other examinees pasted thereon, the picture pasted on the space provided for the respondent, was found by the undersigned, neatly intact.
According to Ms. Cunting, the Chief of the Examination Services Division, the examinees are the ones who paste their respective pictures on the Picture Seat Plan (TSN, November 27, 2007, p. 8). Before they allow them to take the examination, they have to accomplish among others, the attendance sheet and the picture seat plan and they have to paste their respective pictures on the Picture Seat Plan (TSN, November 27, 2007, pp. 5-6).
The conclusion therefore, [sic] is inescapable that contrary to the respondent's assertion that it was he who took the subject examination, it was someone else who took the subject examination for him. And it is significant to note that even the signature affixed on the Examinee Attendance Sheet (Rollo, p. 27) and on the Picture Seat Plan (Exhibit "A"), is strikingly different from the respondent's signature affixed on his Personal Data Sheet (Exhibit "B" and "B-1"). The respondent never contested this finding. And he cannot now pretend that he was not given the opportunity to examine the questioned documents. He was notified of the scheduled hearings to afford him the opportunity to examine for himself the subject Picture Seat Plan, but as earlier stated, despite notice, he failed to appear, thereby bolstering his desperate position on the matter of the finding of the Civil Service Commission that the picture appearing and the signature affixed on the Picture Seat Plan are not really his and the conclusion that someone else (not the respondent) took the subject examination. The respondent even failed to point to anyone who could have been so excessively interested in his position that he or she had to resort to framing him up.
That there might have been mixing up of the pictures and signatures of the examinees, or that respondent might have submitted the wrong picture as he would also want to impress, was unlikely in light of the strict procedures observed by the supervising Civil Service Commission officials during examination. Thus, in Cruz and Paitim v. CSC (G.R. No. 14464, November 27, 2001), the Hon. Supreme Court sustained the findings of the Civil Service Commission regarding the procedures being observed during examinations:cralavvonlinelawlibraryIt 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 picture 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. 95-5195, Taguinay, Ma. Theresa).15
x x x 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.20
An act which includes the procurement and/or use of fake/spurious civil service eligibility, the giving of assistance to ensure the commission or procurement of the same, cheating, collusion, impersonation, or any other anomalous act which amounts to any violation of the Civil Service examination, has been categorized as a grave offense of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.21
1Rollo, p. 34.cralawlibrary
2 Id. at 35.cralawlibrary
3 Id. at 2.cralawlibrary
4 Id. at 1.cralawlibrary
5 Id. at 5.cralawlibrary
6 Id. at 7-10.cralawlibrary
7 Id. at 6.cralawlibrary
8 Id. at 8.cralawlibrary
9 Id. at 8-9.cralawlibrary
10 Id. at 18.cralawlibrary
11 Id. at 19.cralawlibrary
12 Id. at 90-91.cralawlibrary
13 Id. at 90.cralawlibrary
14 Id. at 90-94.cralawlibrary
15 Id. at 92-93.cralawlibrary
16 Id. at 104.cralawlibrary
17 Id. at 106-110.cralawlibrary
18 Id. at 108.cralawlibrary
19 450 Phil. 59 (2003).cralawlibrary
20 Id. at 67-68.cralawlibrary
21Civil Service Commission v. Cayobit, 457 Phil. 452, 460 (2003).cralawlibrary
22 See Momongan v. Sumayo, A.M. No. P-10-2767, April 12, 2011, 648 SCRA 26, 30; Retired Employee, MTC, Sibonga, Cebu v. Manubag, A.M. No. P-10-2833, December 14, 2010, 638 SCRA 86, 89-90; Anonymous v. Curamen, A.M. No. P-08-2549, June 18, 2010, 621 SCRA 212, 218-219; Re: Spurious Certificate of Eligibility of Tessie G. Quires, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Quezon City, 523 Phil. 21, 23 (2006); Disapproved Appointment of Maricel A. Cubijano, Court Stenographer III, RTC-Br. 28, Lianga, Surigao del Sur, 504 Phil. 517, 520 (2005).cralawlibrary
23Civil Service Commission v. Zenaida T. Sta. Ana, supra note 20, at 69.