A.M. No. SB-12-19-P - Civil Service Commission vs. Andal

The respondent, Herminigildo L. Andal, was employed as a permanent Security Guard II of the Sandiganbayan.
The controversy arose from allegations that respondent allowed another person to take his Civil Service Professional Examination-Computer Assisted Test (CSPE-CAT) on his behalf.

On December 20, 2006, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) issued Resolution Nos. 062255 and 071493, affirming a Decision by the CSC-NCR dated May 25, 2005, which dismissed respondent from government service for dishonesty.
The CSC-NCR found respondent guilty of allowing another person to take his CSPE-CAT, based primarily on discrepancies such as differing photographs in the Picture Seat Plan (PSP) and his Civil Service Application Form.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals set aside the judgment of the CSC, ruling that a case against a Sandiganbayan security guard was under the purview of the Supreme Court due to its supervisory jurisdiction over the courts and their personnel.
The Supreme Court, in a Decision dated December 16, 2009 (G.R. No. 185749), affirmed the CA ruling. Later, on July 24, 2012, the en banc Supreme Court re-docketed the case as an administrative matter and referred it for investigation and report.

Originally, the case was referred to then Presiding Justice Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr. for investigation, report, and recommendation.
Due to his request to reassign the investigation (citing potential conflicts with his other duties) and his subsequent compulsory retirement on June 8, 2013, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended transferring the investigation.
After subsequent administrative adjustments—including concerns regarding Justice Ong's pending administrative case—the file was finally referred on January 15, 2014, to Justice Roland B. Jurado for investigation.

CSC records showed that respondent had applied for the CSPE-CAT scheduled on January 24, 2000 and had apparently passed with a rating of 81.08%.
However, discrepancies in the photographs between the Picture Seat Plan and his application form raised suspicion that he did not take the test himself.
Respondent admitted he could not have taken the test because he was in the province nursing an alcohol hangover on the said date.

In his defense, respondent denied authorizing anyone to take the test on his behalf. Instead, he claimed that the impersonation was the work of a group of employees who resented him for exposing their drinking sprees and drug use.
He further alleged that one of his co-employees, Larry Lincallo, had informed him in 2007 that the impersonator was Emmerson Nucom, a high school classmate of Lincallo.
Acting on this information, respondent executed a Complaint-Affidavit in 2012 charging Nucom with impersonation before the CSC.
The investigating officer, Justice Jurado, found the claim of impersonation incredible due to the lack of corroborative evidence and the improbability that an examinee would take the test without explicit instructions or compensation.

After a preliminary conference on January 17, 2014, and the submission of judicial affidavits, evidence, and memoranda by the parties, Justice Jurado submitted his Investigation Report and Recommendation on February 27, 2014.
The report found respondent guilty of dishonesty under Rule IV Section 52 (A) (1) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service Rules.
Justice Jurado recommended the principal penalty of suspension from office for one year, along with accessory penalties of being barred from taking any civil service examination and disqualification from promotion, while also noting mitigating circumstances such as his long service, good performance, and family situation.

Whether the discrepancies in the applicant’s photographs between the PSP and the Civil Service Application Form unequivocally established that respondent did not personally take the test.
Whether respondent’s admission of being unable to take the test (due to an alcohol-induced hangover) corroborated the evidence of impersonation.

Whether there was substantial and corroborative evidence to support respondent’s claim that an unauthorized impersonator took the exam on his behalf.
Whether the five-year delay in filing the Complaint-Affidavit against the alleged impersonator could be justified as a genuine grievance.

Whether the mitigating circumstances such as length of service, good performance, and personal hardship could warrant a penalty less severe than dismissal.
Whether a one-year suspension, as recommended by the investigating officer, adequately addressed the gravity of the offense of dishonesty in the context of obtaining civil service eligibility.