CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, COMPLAINANT, VS. HERMINIGILDO L. ANDAL, SECURITY GUARD II, SANDIGANBAYAN, QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENT.

Civil Service Commission versus Andal

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by the Civil Service Commission against Herminigildo L. Andal, a permanent Security Guard II of the Sandiganbayan. The Commission charges him with dishonesty for allowing another person to take the Civil Service Professional Examination on his behalf, and for taking credit for the resulting passing rate. The case matters because it fixes the quantum of proof and the penalty for falsified civil service eligibility inside the judiciary, and because it shows that satisfactory performance and long service will not save an employee from dismissal for grave dishonesty.

Procedural History

The Civil Service Commission, through its National Capital Region office, dismissed Andal from government service after finding him guilty of dishonesty. The Commission affirmed that dismissal in its resolutions. Andal appealed to the Court of Appeals, which set aside the Commission's judgment for want of jurisdiction, holding that a security guard of the Sandiganbayan falls under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court then re-docketed the matter as an administrative case and referred it to the Sandiganbayan for investigation, report, and recommendation. After several reassignments, the case was referred to Justice Roland B. Jurado, who conducted a preliminary conference, received judicial affidavits, formal offers of evidence, and memoranda, and then submitted his Investigation Report and Recommendation. The Court partially adopted that recommendation and decided the case as an administrative matter.

Facts

Andal applied for the Civil Service Professional Examination scheduled for 24 January 2000 and was credited with a passing rating of 81.08 percent. The Commission later compared the photographs in the Picture Seat Plan with those in his Civil Service Application Form and found them entirely different, leading it to conclude that he had not taken the test himself.

Andal admitted that he could not have taken the examination that day, because he was in the province nursing an alcohol hangover. He denied, however, that he had authorized anyone to take the test for him. He claimed that a group of co-employees who disliked him for reporting their drinking sprees and doping sessions to their superiors had arranged the impersonation. He said that in 2007 a co-employee told him the impersonator was Emmerson Nucom, and that in 2012 he filed a complaint-affidavit against Nucom before the Commission.

Justice Jurado disbelieved the defense. He reasoned that employees with a grudge would have made sure Andal failed rather than passed, and that it defies reason for another person to take the examination on Andal's behalf without instruction, since the impersonator would need to know the examinee's personal circumstances. He also found the five-year gap between Andal's knowledge of the impersonator's identity and the filing of the complaint to be a sign that the claim was not genuine. He found Andal guilty of dishonesty but recommended only suspension for one year, plus the accessory penalties of being barred from taking any civil service examination and disqualification from promotion, citing satisfactory service, good performance ratings, and non-use of the acquired eligibility.

Issues

• Whether or not Andal is guilty of dishonesty for allowing another person to take the Civil Service Professional Examination in his place and for taking credit for the passing rate.
• Whether or not the mitigating circumstances of satisfactory performance, length of service, and non-utilization of the acquired eligibility justify reducing the penalty to suspension instead of dismissal.

Applicable Provisions

Rule IV, Section 52, paragraph A, subparagraph 1 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service classifies dishonesty as a grave offense, and the decision cites it as the provision under which Andal was found guilty:

Rule IV Section 52 (A) (1) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service Rules.

This provision supplies the classification of the offense and, with the accessory penalties, the framework for the penalty imposed on Andal.

Rule 134, Section 5 of the Rules of Court defines substantial evidence, the quantum of proof the Court applies in this administrative case:

Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

This standard governs whether the charge of dishonesty has been established against Andal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Andal is guilty of dishonesty. His admission that he was nursing a hangover on the day of the examination was effectively an admission that he did not take the test and did not earn the 81.08 percent rating. The photographs in his application form and the Picture Seat Plan were entirely different, so another person clearly took the test under his name. The Court found his impersonation theory incredible: it was self-serving and uncorroborated; employees with a grudge would rather have made him fail; it defies reason for the actual examinee to take the test for another without recompense; and even assuming an unauthorized impersonator, Andal should have alerted the Commission or the Sandiganbayan as soon as he received the passing grade. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in Donato, Junior versus Civil Service Commission Regional Office Number 1, explaining that in impersonation there are always two persons involved and the offense cannot prosper without the active participation of both, and that by colluding with another to take the test and then claiming the passing rate, the case against the examinee is clinched. The Court also cited Office of the Court Administrator versus Bermejo, where the claim of impersonation was rejected because the actual examinee was not present to defend himself. By perpetrating his false eligibility and letting it remain on record, Andal concealed and distorted the truth in a matter relevant to his office.

On the second issue, the Court held that the recommended one-year suspension cannot stand. The recommendation was internally conflicting: having ruled that Andal falsely obtained his eligibility and having barred him from taking any civil service examination, it follows that he no longer holds a basic qualification to hold his permanent position, so the penalty must be removal from government service. The mitigating circumstances of satisfactory performance, length of service, and non-utilization of the acquired eligibility cannot justify a reduced penalty, because dishonesty cannot be tolerated from government officials or employees even when official duties are performed well. First-time offenders found guilty of grave dishonesty involving falsification of civil service examination results already merit dismissal. Length of service was not considered in Civil Service Commission versus Ramoneda-Pita, since falsifying eligibility does not satisfy the high standards demanded of a court employee. It was likewise erroneous to appreciate that Andal never benefited from the acquired eligibility, given that he enjoyed his permanent position without the requisite eligibility.

Doctrine

Dishonesty in obtaining civil service eligibility is a grave offense punishable by dismissal from service, even for a first-time offender, and the mitigating circumstances of satisfactory performance, length of service, and non-utilization of the acquired eligibility do not reduce that penalty. In impersonation cases, the Commission consistently rejects claims of good faith, because it is contrary to human nature for a person to commit impersonation without the consent of the person being impersonated; the offense requires the active participation of both persons, and claiming the resulting passing rate clinches the case against the examinee. The quantum of proof in these administrative cases is substantial evidence, which is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion, satisfied so long as there is reasonable ground to believe the respondent is responsible for the misconduct, even if the evidence is not overwhelming or preponderant. An employee who falsely obtains eligibility and lets it remain on record lacks the basic qualification to hold a permanent position in the judiciary.

Disposition

The Court found Herminigildo L. Andal guilty of dishonesty and dismissed him from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except the value of his accrued leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to re-employment in the government or any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Remember This

Memorize this line: falsifying civil service eligibility is grave dishonesty, and neither long service nor good performance will reduce the penalty of dismissal. Examiners use this case to test the quantum of substantial evidence in administrative cases and the rule that impersonation requires the consent and participation of the person being impersonated.