A.M. No. SB-12-19-P [Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-26-SB-P] - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, COMPLAINANT, VS. HERMINIGILDO L. ANDAL, SECURITY GUARD II, SANDIGANBAYAN, QUEZON CITY.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , in view of all the foregoing, the undersigned investigating Justice finds respondent HERMINIGILDO L. ANDAL guilty of DISHONESTY under Rule IV Section 52 (A) (1) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service Rules. Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that in view of the existence of mitigating circumstances, respondent be meted the penalty of suspension from office for one (1) year instead of dismissal from service. Further, pursuant to Sections 57 and 58 of the said rules, the accessory penalties of being barred from taking any civil service examination and disqualification for promotion are also recommended. RULING OF THE COURT After a judicious examination of the records, we partially adopt the above recommendation. Justice Jurado's Investigation Report and Recommendation is supported by the evidence on record showing that respondent did not take the CSPE-CAT of 24 January 2000. Firstly, by claiming that he was nursing a hangover on the day of examination, respondent was effectively admitting that he did not take the test; and logically, he did not earn for himself the 81.08% passing rate. Secondly, the pictures in his Civil Service Application Form and PSP are entirely different. [18] In other words, it cannot be doubted that another person took the test under his name. Despite this established fact, respondent still tries to refute the charge of dishonesty by claiming that the actual examinee impersonated him and took the test without his knowledge. Indeed, to be found guilty of dishonesty, there must be substantial evidence that respondent intentionally made false statements or practiced deception in securing his permanent employment with the Sandiganbayan. [19] Substantial evidence, which is the quantum of proof required in this administrative case, is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. [20] This standard is satisfied in the present case so long as there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if the evidence may not be overwhelming or even preponderant. [21] Here, we agree with Justice Jurado that the impersonation theory of respondent, claimed to be perpetrated by his officemates, is incredible. First, the claim of respondent is self-serving and uncorroborated by any witness. Second, it is more reasonable to believe that the employees who had an axe to grind against him would rather have him fail than pass the test. Third, as Justice Jurado aptly pointed out, it defies reason that the actual examinee would take the test for the benefit of another without any recompense. Fourth, even assuming arguendo that respondent had an unauthorized impersonator, he should have alerted the CSC or the Sandiganbayan as soon as he received the passing grade. Respondent's scheme of passing the blame to the actual examinee is old hat. In Donato, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission Regional