Re: Bulaong

Dishonesty committed by a court employee prior to employment in the Judiciary falls within the Supreme Court's administrative jurisdiction, and impersonation in a Civil Service Examination constitutes dishonesty punishable by dismissal even if committed for the first time.

Nestor D. Bulaong was appointed Court Stenographer I at the Municipal Trial Court of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, after purportedly passing the Career Service Professional Examination held on December 17, 1995 in Malolos, Bulacan, where he claimed to have earned a rating of 88.01%. The Civil Service Commission, through comparison of photographs and signatures in Bulaong's Personal Data Sheets and the examination's seat plan, discovered that another individual may have taken the examination in his behalf. Because Bulaong is an employee of the Judiciary, the CSC referred the case to the Supreme Court through the Office of the Court Administrator, and Bulaong's case with the CSC was terminated.

Nestor D. Bulaong was a Court Stenographer I at the Municipal Trial Court of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija. He claimed to have taken the Career Service Professional Examination on December 17, 1995 in Malolos, Bulacan and earned a rating of 88.01%, on the basis of which he was eventually appointed to his position in the Judiciary.

On September 17, 1996, the Civil Service Commission issued a Formal Charge alleging that Bulaong had caused another individual to take the examination in his behalf. The CSC discovered the scheme through glaring differences between the photograph and signature of Bulaong in his Personal Data Sheets and those appearing in the examination's seat plan. Bulaong filed an Answer/Counter-Affidavit on October 17, 1996 denying the allegation and opting for a formal investigation. The CSC scheduled a hearing on June 19, 1998, but it was postponed to July 31, 1998 upon Bulaong's request. Thereafter, the CSC took no further action on the case.

Because Bulaong was an employee of the Judiciary, the CSC referred his case to the Supreme Court through the Office of the Court Administrator via a letter dated December 26, 2013, and Bulaong's case with the CSC was terminated. On two separate occasions, the OCA directed Bulaong to file his comment on the CSC's allegation, but he failed to do so. The OCA, in an Evaluation and Recommendation dated June 6, 2016, found that Bulaong's photograph in his PDS appeared to be different from the attached picture in the seat plan, and that the significant differences in the signatures — including loops, lines, slant, pressure, fineness, contours, and style — revealed that the two signatures belonged to two different persons. The OCA concluded that this was a case of impersonation and recommended Bulaong's dismissal from the service.

• Denial of the Charge: Respondent denied the allegation of dishonesty and grave misconduct in his Answer/Counter-Affidavit dated October 17, 1996 and opted for a formal investigation before the CSC.
• Non-participation in Proceedings: Respondent failed to file any comment on the CSC's allegation despite being directed to do so by the OCA on two separate occasions, offering no defense or explanation.

• Jurisdiction: Whether the Supreme Court has administrative jurisdiction over Bulaong for an offense committed prior to his employment in the Judiciary.
• Dishonesty: Whether Bulaong committed dishonesty by causing another person to take the Career Service Professional Examination in his behalf.
• Penalty: Whether dismissal is the proper penalty for the dishonesty committed.

• Jurisdiction: Yes. Administrative jurisdiction over a court employee belongs to the Supreme Court, regardless of whether the offense was committed before or after employment in the Judiciary.
• Dishonesty: Yes. The CSC's investigation categorically disclosed that Bulaong was not the one who actually took the examination, as shown by completely different photographs and signatures in his PDS versus the seat plan.
• Penalty: Yes. Under Section 25, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, dishonesty is a serious charge punishable by dismissal even if committed for the first time.

• Jurisdiction: The Court relied on the principle that administrative jurisdiction over a court employee belongs to the Supreme Court, regardless of whether the offense was committed before or after employment in the Judiciary. Although Bulaong committed the dishonesty prior to his appointment as Court Stenographer I, the Court retained jurisdiction because he was an employee of the Judiciary at the time the case was referred. The CSC properly referred the case to the Court through the OCA, and Bulaong's case with the CSC was terminated.

• Dishonesty: The CSC's investigation categorically disclosed that Bulaong was not the one who actually took the Career Service Professional Examination held on December 17, 1995 at Malolos, Bulacan. The signatures of Bulaong in his PDS were clearly and totally different from those appearing in the seat plan — the signature in the seat plan spelled out Bulaong's complete name, while his signatures in his PDS appeared to be more like scribbles with loops. The photographs likewise showed completely different people. The impersonation would not have been possible without the active participation of both Bulaong and the other person who took the examination in his name, and Bulaong had been benefiting from the passing result. Bulaong's bare denial without supporting proof was considered a weak defense, and his failure to file a comment despite two directives from the OCA bolstered the suspicion of guilt. Substantial evidence — that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion — supported the finding of dishonesty.

• Penalty: Under Section 25, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, dishonesty is considered a serious charge punishable by dismissal even if committed for the first time. As an employee of the Judiciary, Bulaong was expected to exemplify the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and uprightness, as he represented not just himself but the whole institution. The Code of Conduct of Court Personnel provides that court personnel serve as sentinels of justice and any act of impropriety immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the Judiciary. His actions prejudiced not only the civil service but the public in general, as he improperly secured the government position when someone else was probably more qualified. However, Bulaong remained entitled to receive his accrued leave credits, if any, which he earned during his employment, as a matter of fairness and law.

• Dishonesty — Defined as "intentionally making a false statement in any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his examination, registration, appointment or promotion." It implies a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; unworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray. Dishonesty is a willful and voluntary act which cannot be justified under the guise of negligence or ignorance; it is a question of intention. The Court applied this definition to find that Bulaong's impersonation scheme — having another person take the Civil Service Examination in his behalf — constituted dishonesty, as it involved deliberate deception to secure his examination, registration, and appointment.

• Administrative Jurisdiction over Court Employees — Administrative jurisdiction over a court employee belongs to the Supreme Court, regardless of whether the offense was committed before or after employment in the Judiciary. The Court applied this doctrine to uphold its jurisdiction over Bulaong despite the dishonesty having been committed prior to his appointment as Court Stenographer I.

• Substantial Evidence Standard in Administrative Cases — Substantial evidence is "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion" (Rule 133, Section 6, 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence). The Court found substantial evidence to rule that Bulaong committed dishonesty, based on the discrepancies in photographs and signatures and his failure to rebut the charge.

• Penalty for Dishonesty under Rule 140 — Under Section 25, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, dishonesty is a serious charge punishable by dismissal even if committed for the first time. The Court applied this provision to impose dismissal on Bulaong, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reinstatement or appointment to any public office.

• "administrative jurisdiction over a court employee belongs to the Supreme Court, regardless of whether the offense was committed before or after employment in the judiciary." — This passage establishes the jurisdictional basis for the Court's exercise of disciplinary authority over Bulaong despite the offense predating his Judiciary employment.

• "[T]he impersonation would not have been possible without the active participation of both the respondent and the other person who took the examination in [his] name. It must have only been with the permission and knowledge of respondent that the other person was able to use [his] name for the examinations. More importantly, respondent has been benefiting from the passing result in the said examination." — This passage articulates the reasoning by which the Court inferred Bulaong's culpable participation in the impersonation scheme, emphasizing both his knowledge and his continuing benefit from the fraud.

• "[t]he image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel who work thereat, from the judge to the lowest of its personnel." — This passage reflects the standard of conduct expected of Judiciary employees and the rationale for imposing the severe penalty of dismissal.

• Ampong vs. Civil Service Commission, 585 Phil. 289 (2008) — Cited for the proposition that administrative jurisdiction over a court employee belongs to the Supreme Court regardless of whether the offense was committed before or after employment in the Judiciary.
• Civil Service Commission vs. Ramoneda-Pita, 709 Phil. 153 (2013) — Cited for the definition of dishonesty and the principle that dishonesty is a question of intention, not simply bad judgment or negligence.
• Re: Chulyao, 646 Phil. 34 (2010) — Cited for the definition of dishonesty as implying a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud, and for the principle that a respondent's failure to defend himself bolsters suspicion of guilt.
• Civil Service Commission vs. Dasco, 587 Phil. 558 (2008) — Cited for the proposition that impersonation in a Civil Service Examination requires the active participation of both the respondent and the person who took the examination, and that the respondent benefits from the passing result.
• Office of the Court Administrator vs. Ampong, 735 Phil. 14 (2014) — Cited for the standard that the image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct of its personnel, and for the rule that a dismissed employee may not be deprived of accrued leave credits earned prior to dismissal.
• Civil Service Commission vs. Sta. Ana, 450 Phil. 59 (2003) — Cited as among cases where the Court dismissed judicial employees for dishonesty in having another individual take the Civil Service Examination in their stead.
• Office of the Court Administrator vs. Bermejo, 572 Phil. 6 (2008) — Cited as among cases where the Court dismissed judicial employees for dishonesty in examination impersonation.
• Maddela III vs. Pamintuan, A.M. Nos. RTJ-19-2559 & RTJ-19-2561, August 14, 2019 — Cited for the principle that a bare denial without supporting proof should be considered a weak defense.

• Section 25, Rule 140, Rules of Court — Classifies dishonesty as a serious charge punishable by dismissal from the service, even if committed for the first time. The Court applied this provision to impose the penalty of dismissal on Bulaong.
• Rule 133, Section 6, 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence — Defines substantial evidence as "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion." The Court found substantial evidence to support the finding of dishonesty.
• Code of Conduct of Court Personnel (A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC, June 1, 2004) — Provides that court personnel are involved in the dispensation of justice and serve as sentinels of justice, and that any act of impropriety immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the Judiciary. The Court invoked this Code to underscore the standard of conduct expected of Bulaong as a Judiciary employee.
• Section 25(A), Rule 140, Rules of Court — Provides that a dismissed employee is entitled to accrued leave credits earned during employment. The Court applied this provision to preserve Bulaong's right to his accrued leave credits despite his dismissal.

Gesmundo, C.J., Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Lopez, Delos Santos, Gaerlan, Rosario, and Lopez, JJ.