Facts:

This case involves the administrative complaint against Norhata A. Abubacar, who served as Court Stenographer I at the Shari’a Circuit Court in Lumbatan, Lanao del Sur. The complaint stemmed from findings by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) regarding the validity of her civil service eligibility. On November 3, 2014, the CSC Regional Office No. 10 referred a Preliminary Investigation Report to the Supreme Court, indicating that on November 7, 1999, a person claiming to be Abubacar took the Career Service (CS) Sub-professional Examination in Cagayan de Oro City and achieved a score of 85.07%. However, a comparison of her photographs revealed a significant disparity, suggesting that someone else was impersonating her during the examination. Furthermore, the signatures on her Personal Data Sheet (PDS) and the examination records were inconsistent. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) ordered Abubacar to respond to these allegations but she failed to do so multiple times. C

...

Facts:

Background and Initiation of the Case

• Norhata A. Abubacar, Court Stenographer I of the Shariʹa Circuit Court of Lumbatan, Lanao del Sur, was charged administratively with dishonesty and insubordination.
• The administrative case was initiated following a referral by the CSC-Regional Office No. 10 based on a Preliminary Investigation Report.
• The report involved an alleged examination irregularity concerning the 07 November 1999 Career Service (CS) Sub Professional Examination taken in Cagayan de Oro City.

Allegations of Examination Irregularity and Falsification

• Abubacar purportedly applied for and took the aforementioned examination, obtaining a rating of 85.07%.
• Her 17 January 2000 Personal Data Sheet (PDS) affirmed that she had taken the exam with that rating.
• A comparison of her PDS picture with that in the Picture Seat Plan for the examination revealed noticeable differences in facial features and signature dissimilarities, suggesting that another person might have taken the examination on her behalf.
• Additional evidence noted a discrepancy concerning the presence of a mole under her right eyebrow in her PDS pictures versus the absence of such a feature in the Picture Seat Plan.

Procedural Developments

• The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) requested Abubacar’s explanation on the report on two separate occasions.
• On 22 February 2017, the Court directed her to show cause why she should not be held administratively liable, stipulating a five-day period for her comment.
• Despite the directive, Abubacar failed to submit her comments, leading the Court to deem her to have waived her right to respond in a resolution dated 18 October 2017.
• The case was subsequently referred to the OCA which conducted an investigation and submitted a memorandum later reaffirming her guilt for dishonesty and insubordination.

Findings and Evidence from the OCA and Subsequent Proceedings

• The OCA’s memorandum dated 25 October 2018 reiterated that:
• Abubacar’s records showed inconsistencies in the pictures attached to her various PDS forms.
• The consistent features (e.g., a mole under her right eyebrow) in her records contrasted sharply with the image in the examination’s Picture Seat Plan.
• Abubacar’s defense that the discrepant picture was merely her high school picture was undermined by evidence concerning her age (31 years at the time of examination) and by CSC guidelines requiring photos taken within six months of the application.
• No corroborative sworn statements from her co-employees were presented to support her claim of inherently varying penmanship.
• Ultimately, the evidence supported that someone else had taken the examination in her stead.

Previous Jurisprudence and Reference Cases

• The Court referenced similar cases, notably Clavite-Vidal v. Aguam, which involved impersonation evidenced by discrepancies in submitted identification pictures and signatures.
• It was emphasized that the act of allowing another to take the civil service exam constitutes an act of dishonesty and breach of integrity.

Issue:

Whether Abubacar committed an act of dishonesty by misrepresenting her participation in the Career Service Examination.

• Whether the discrepancies in the photographic evidence and signatures establish that another person took the examination on her behalf.
• Whether her misrepresentation in the Personal Data Sheet, which underpinned her permanent employment with the Court, nullifies her eligibility.

Whether Abubacar’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders to submit her comment constitutes a waiver of her right to be heard.

• The effect of her non-compliance on the administrative proceedings.
• Whether such non-response should be considered as an admission of guilt.

Whether precedent cases on impersonation in civil service exams justify the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service.

• The applicability of established jurisprudence regarding impersonation and falsification of official documents in the context of civil service examinations.
• The role of mitigating or extenuating circumstances under Section 53 in influencing the severity of the penalty.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)