A.M. No. P-05-2004 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2086-P) - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, vs. LOURDES F. BERMEJO, COURT STENOGRAPHER II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly DISMISSED as Court Stenographer II, MTCC, Puerto Princesa City, with forfeiture of all her retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. The OCA's recommendation is well-taken. This Court has had occasion to rule on similar cases in the past. In Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana, [3] the Court found, thus: After a thorough review of the matter, the Court finds that respondent is indeed guilty of dishonesty. An examination of respondent's Personal Data Sheet reveals that her signature and picture on it are different from those in her CAT Application and Picture Seat Plan. Respondent attributes such discrepancy to "unknown persons who may have been committing such anomaly and irregularity in the examination procedure of the CSC." 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. In a similar case, this Court approved the findings of the CSC regarding procedures during examinations: It 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 pictures 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). Thus, the irregularity in respondent's Personal Data Sheet, CAT Application and Picture Seat Plan cannot be attributed to error on the CSC's part. It is clear that somebody else took the CSC exam for respondent Sta. Ana. For respondent to claim that she herself took the CSC exam when in fact somebody else took it for her constitutes dishonesty. On the other hand, in Donato v. Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. 1 , [4] Alejandro Donato, Jr. was charged with dishonesty and falsification of public documents for representing himself as Gil Arce and taking the civil service exam under that name. The CSC and the Court of Appeals both found that the picture of Donato appeared on the Picture Seat Plan on