EN BANC
November 28, 2017
A.M. No. 14-10-314-RTC
Anonymous Complaint dated May 3, 2013, Re: Fake Certificates of Civil Service Eligibility of MARIVIC B. RAGEL, EVELYN C. RAGEL, EMELYN B. CAMPOS, and JOVILYN B. DAWANG,
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
The Case
For the consideration of the Court is the Administrative Matter for Agenda dated July 4, 20171 prepared by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) with the following recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court that Evelyn Corpus Ragel, Stenographer I, Municipal Trial Court, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, and Emelyn Borillo Campos, Stenographer III, Branch 31, Regional Trial Court, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, be DISMISSED from the service with FORFEITURE of all retirement benefits except their accrued leave credits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
The Facts
An anonymous letter dated May 3, 2013 was received by the OCA alleging that the Certificates of Civil Service Eligibility of the following court personnel are spurious and that their educational attainment did not meet the requirements for their respective positions:
1. Marivic Borillo Ragel, Clerk II, Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija;
2. Evelyn Corpus Ragel, Stenographer I, MTC, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija;
3. Emelyn Borillo Campos, Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 31, Guimba, Nueva Ecija; and
4. Jovilyn Borillo Dawang, Stenographer I, MTC, Talugtog, Nueva Ecija.2
Thereafter, in its Resolution dated December 10, 2014, the Court directed the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to verify the authenticity of the eligibility of the aforesaid court personnel. In compliance therewith, Maria Leticia G. Reyna (Reyna), Director IV, Integrated Records Management Office of the CSC, submitted a letter informing the Court that the names of the above-mentioned court personnel are in the records of the CSC. However, a comparison of the photos in the Personal Data Sheets (PDS) of Evelyn Corpus Ragel, Emelyn Borillo Campos and Jovilyn Borillo Dawang with their photos in the Picture-Seat Plans of examinees in their respective rooms where they allegedly took the Civil Service Examinations showed discrepancies in their facial features.3
In a Resolution dated April 18, 2016, the Court dismissed the administrative complaint against Marivic B. Ragel while it required Evelyn Ragel and Emelyn Campos to file their respective Comments on the anonymous complaint.4
In a separate administrative case, docketed as A.M. No. P-15-3289, Jovilyn Dawang was dismissed from the service on the ground of serious dishonesty in an En Banc Resolution5 dated February 17, 2015.
In their Comment/Answer dated October 4, 2016, Evelyn Ragel and Emelyn Campos deny the allegation in the complaint. Evelyn Ragel states that she took the Civil Service Examination at E. Rodriguez Jr. High School, Quezon City on October 20, 1996, and she personally signed her signature as examinee in the records of the said examination. On the other hand, Emelyn Campos states that she took the Civil Service Examination on January 6, 1997 at the CSC-NCR Office and that she also personally affixed her signature in the records of the said examination. They both denied committing any act of dishonesty or deceit and maintained that they took their respective examinations.6
OCA corresponded with the CSC to request a certified copy of the Picture-Seat Plans of Emelyn Campos and Evelyn Ragel for their respective Civil Service Examinations. On June 14, 2017, Director Reyna sent an authenticated enlarged reproduction of the requested Picture-Seat Plans in the January 6, 1997 and October 20, 1996 Civil Service Examinations.
The Court's Ruling
The Court is disposed to accept the recommendation of the OCA.
We agree with the observation of the CSC and the OCA that the persons who appeared on the Picture-Seat Plans submitted by the CSC and who took the Civil Service Examinations on January 6, 1997 and October 20, 1996 were not Evelyn Ragel and Emelyn Campos, respectively. Both their photographs in the Picture-Seat Plans and those in the PDS that they submitted on April 8, 1997 and November 28, 1996, respectively, bear distinct differences in their facial features.7 The differences are so apparent that even an ordinary person could easily discern it and conclude that these persons are different from one another.
The OCA also observed that the variance in the signatures of Evelyn Ragel and Emelyn Campos appearing in the Picture-Seat Plans and their signatures in their respective PDS is obvious in terms of dips and slants, strokes and fluidity.8 This is but another evidence that the persons who took the examinations were not Evelyn Ragel and Emelyn Campos.
Evelyn Ragel and Emelyn Campos merely denied the allegations against them and claimed that they personally affixed their signatures on the records of the said examinations. However, apart from their bare denial, they did not submit any proof to negate the accusations against them. These are all flimsy and lame excuses, which collapse in the face of the very obvious evidence to the contrary. It is well-settled that denial is an inherently weak defense. To be believed, it must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability; otherwise, such denial is purely self-serving and is with no evidentiary value.9 Like the defense of alibi, a denial crumbles in light of positive identification.10
The records of the case clearly established that the persons who took the Civil Service Examinations on January 6, 1997 and October 20, 1996 were not Evelyn Ragel and Emelyn Campos, respectively. In Civil Service Commission v. Dasco,11 which is an administrative case with a similar factual milieu as here, this Court ruled:
The only logical scenario is that another person, who matched the picture in the Picture Seating Plan, actually took the examination on 5 August 1990 in respondent's name. In the offense of impersonation, there are always two persons involved. In the instant case, the impersonation would not have been possible without the active participation of both the respondent and the other person who took the examination in her name. It must have only been with the permission and knowledge of respondent that the other person was able to use her name for the examinations. More importantly, respondent has been benefiting from the passing result in the said examination. (Emphasis supplied)
Considering the foregoing, We find that Evelyn Ragel and Emelyn Campos are, indeed, guilty of dishonesty.
In Dasco,12 the Court explained that dishonesty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal, to wit:
Dishonesty has been defined as intentionally making a false statement in any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his examination, registration, appointment or promotion. It is also understood to imply a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.
Under the Civil Service Rules, dishonesty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal which carries the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits (except leave credits pursuant to Rule 140, Section 11[1]) and disqualification from reemployment in the government service. (Emphasis supplied)
It must be stressed that every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness, and honesty.13 Like any public servant, he or she must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of official duties but also in personal and private dealings with other people, to preserve the court's good name and standing. The image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel who work thereat, from the judge to the lowest of its personnel. Court personnel have been enjoined to adhere to the exacting standards of morality and decency in their professional and private conduct in order to preserve the good name and integrity of the courts of justice.14
By their act of dishonesty, Evelyn Ragel and Emelyn Campos failed to meet the stringent standards set for a judicial employee.1âwphi1 As such, they do not deserve to remain part of the judiciary and must be dismissed from office.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Evelyn Corpus Ragel, Stenographer I, Municipal Trial Court, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija and Emelyn Borillo Campos, Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Guimba, Nueva Ecija are found GUILTY of dishonesty. They are hereby ordered DISMISSED from the service with FORFEITURE of all retirement benefits, except their accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice |
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice |
(On Leave)
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE*
Associate Justice |
MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN
Associate Justice |
FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA
Associate Justice |
ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA
Associate Justice |
SAMUEL R. MARTIRES
Associate Justice |
NOEL GIMENEZ TIJAM
Associate Justice |
ANDRES B. REYES, JR.
Associate Justice |
ALEXANDER G. GESMUNDO
Associate Justice |
Footnotes
* On leave.
1 Penned by Jose Midas P. Marquez and Deputy Court Administrator Jenny Lind R. Aldecoa-Delorino.
2 Rollo, p. 68.
3 Id. at 68-69.
4 Id. at 69.
5 Id. at 42-45.
6 Id. at 56-58.
7 Id. at 70.
8 Id.
9 Civil Service Commission v. Dasco, A.M. No. P-07-2335, September 22, 2008, 566 SCRA 114.
10 Id., citing Jugueta v. Estacio, A.M. No. CA-04-17-P, November 25, 2004, 444 SCRA 10, 16.
11 Supra note 9, at 121.
12 Supra at 121-122.
13 Office of the Court Administrator v. Sarah P. Among, A.M. No. P-13-3132, June 4, 2014, citing Clavite-Vidalv. Aguam, AM No. SCC-10-13-P, June 26, 2012, 674 SCRA 470, 474-475.
14 Id .
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
