EN BANC Professional Board Examination for Teachers (PBET), a certain Ms.

Evelyn B. Junio (now Decir) took the said examination at Rm. 16

Kapitan Tomas Monteverde Elementary School, Davao City, with a
[G.R. No. 167916. August 26, 2008.]
passing rate of 74.27%; That on July 5, 1994 she appeared before the
CSC Region XI Office to get her Guro Certificate; That upon
SARAH P. AMPONG , petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE verification, it was found out that the picture attached in the Picture
COMMISSION, CSC-Regional Office No. 11, respondent. Seat Plan, marked as Annex "A" and "A-1", respectively, were not the
same compared to the picture attached in the CSC Form 212 of
Evelyn Junio-Decir marked herein as annex "B", "B-1", respectively.
DECISION There was also a marked difference in the signatures affixed in the
said annexes; That further investigations revealed that it was the
pictures of Ms. Sarah Navarra, wife of her husband's first cousin, who
took the said examination in behalf of Ms. Evelyn Junio-Decir, a
REYES, R.T., J : p
provisional teacher; That the said act of Mesdames Decir and Navarra
are acts of dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
CAN the Civil Service Commission (CSC) properly assume jurisdiction the service; that in (sic) taking the CS examination for and in behalf
over administrative proceedings against a judicial employee involving acts of of another undermines the sanctity of the CS examinations; All these
dishonesty as a teacher, committed prior to her appointment to the contrary to existing civil service laws and regulations. (Emphasis
judiciary? SDHacT supplied)
Before Us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision 1 In her sworn statement dated November 3, 1994, Decir denied the
of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the CSC's exercise of administrative charges against her. She reasoned out that it must have been the
jurisdiction over petitioner. examination proctor who pasted the wrong picture on the PSP and that her
The Facts signatures were different because she was still signing her maiden name at
the time of the examination. In her Answer, Decir contended that:
The following facts are uncontroverted:
2. The same accusation is denied, the truth being:
On November 10, 1991, a Professional Board Examination for Teachers
(PBET) 2 was held in Davao City. A certain Evelyn Junio-Decir 3 applied for a. When I took the Professional Board Examination for Teachers
and took the examination at Room 16, Kapitan Tomas Monteverde (PBET) in the year 1991, I handed my 1x1 I.D. picture to
Elementary School. She passed with a rating of 74.27%. 4 the proctor assigned in the examination room who might
have inadvertently pasted in the Seat Plan [the] wrong
At the time of the PBET examinations, petitioner Sarah P. Ampong (nee picture instead [of] my own picture;
Navarra) and Decir were public school teachers under the supervision of the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS). 5 Later, on August 3, b. With respect to the marked difference in my signature both
1993, Ampong transferred to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Alabel, appearing in the aforesaid Seat Plan and also with the Form
212, the disparity lies in that in the year 1991, when I took
Sarangani Province, where she was appointed as Court Interpreter III.
the aforesaid examination, I was still sporting my maiden
On July 5, 1994, a woman representing herself as Evelyn Decir went to name Evelyn B. Junio in order to coincide with all my
the Civil Service Regional Office (CSRO) No. XI, Davao City, to claim a copy of pertinent supporting papers, like the special order (s.o.),
her PBET Certificate of Eligibility. During the course of the transaction, the appointment and among others, purposely to take said
CSRO personnel noticed that the woman did not resemble the picture of the communications. However, immediately after taking the
examinee in the Picture Seat Plan (PSP). Upon further probing, it was PBET Examination in 1991, I started using the full name of
Evelyn Junio-Decir. 6
confirmed that the person claiming the eligibility was different from the one
who took the examinations. It was petitioner Ampong who took and passed Even before filing an Answer, petitioner Ampong voluntarily appeared
the examinations under the name Evelyn Decir. at the CSRO on February 2, 1995 and admitted to the wrongdoing. When
The CSRO conducted a preliminary investigation and determined the reminded that she may avail herself of the services of counsel, petitioner
existence of a prima facie case against Decir and Ampong for Dishonesty, voluntarily waived said right.
Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. On March 13, 1995, petitioner gave another admission in the following
On August 23, 1994, they were formally charged and required to file answers tenor:
under oath. The formal charge reads:
Q: Now, what is then your intention in coming to this Region inasmuch
That sometime before the conduct of the November 10, 1991 as you are still intending to file an answer to the formal charge?
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 A: I came here because I want to admit personally. So that I will not be On March 21, 1996, the CSC found petitioner Ampong and Decir guilty
coming here anymore. I will submit my case for Resolution. of dishonesty, dismissing them from the service. The dispositive part of the
Q: So, you intend to waive your right for the formal hearing and you
CSC resolution states:
also admit orally on the guilt of the charge on the Formal Charge WHEREFORE, the Commission hereby finds Evelyn J. Decir and
dated August 24, 1994? TaCDIc Sarah P. Navarra guilty of Dishonesty. Accordingly, they are meted
the penalty of dismissal with all its accessory penalties. The PBET
A: Yes, Ma'am. rating of Decir is revoked. 9
Q: What else do you want to tell the Commission? Petitioner moved for reconsideration, raising for the first time the issue
A: . . . Inasmuch as I am already remorseful, I am repenting of the
of jurisdiction. 10 She argued that the exclusive authority to discipline
wrong that I have done. I am hoping that the Commission can employees of the judiciary lies with the Supreme Court; that the CSC acted
help . . . so that I will be given or granted another chance to with abuse of discretion when it continued to exercise jurisdiction despite
serve the government. her assumption of duty as a judicial employee. She contended that at the
time the case was instituted on August 23, 1994, the CSC already lost
xxx xxx xxx jurisdiction over her. She was appointed as Interpreter III of the RTC, Branch
Q: Now inasmuch as you have declared that you have admitted the 38, Alabel, Sarangani Province on August 3, 1993.
guilt that you took the examination for and in behalf of Evelyn The CSC denied the motion for reconsideration. 11 According to the
Junio Decir, are you telling this to the Commission without the
Commission, to allow petitioner to evade administrative liability would be a
assistance of the counsel or waiver of your right to be assisted by
counsel.
mockery of the country's administrative disciplinary system. It will open the
floodgates for others to escape prosecution by the mere expedient of joining
A: Yes, Ma'am. I am waiving my right. 7 (Emphasis supplied) another branch of government. In upholding its jurisdiction over petitioner,
the CSC differentiated between administrative supervision exercised by the
Petitioner reiterated her admission in her sworn Answer dated March
Supreme Court and administrative jurisdiction granted to the Commission
16, 1995:
over all civil service employees:
3. That, during the commission of the act, I was still under the Moreover, it must be pointed out that administrative
Department of Education, Culture and Sports, as Teacher in- supervision is distinct from administrative jurisdiction. While it is true
charge of San Miguel Primary School, Malungon North District, that this Commission does not have administrative supervision over
way back in 1991, when the husband of Evelyn Junio-Decir, my employees in the judiciary, it definitely has concurrent jurisdiction
husband's cousin came to me and persuaded me to take the over them . Such jurisdiction was conferred upon the Civil Service
examination in behalf of his wife to which I disagreed but he Commission pursuant to existing law specifically Section 12(11),
earnestly begged so that I was convinced to agree because I pity Chapter 3, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive
his wife considering that she is an immediate relative, and there Order No. 292) which provides as follows:
was no monetary consideration involved in this neither a
compensatory reward for me, as I was overcome by their "(11) Hear and decide administrative cases instituted by or
persuasion; through it directly or on appeal, including contested
appointment, and review decisions and actions of its offices and
4. That, despite the fact that I was a teacher, I was not aware that the of the agencies attached to it . . . ."
CDHSac

acts I was charged, is a ground for disciplinary action and

punishable by dismissal; The fact that court personnel are under the administrative
supervision of the Supreme Court does not totally isolate them from
5. That I should not have conformed to this anomalous transaction the operations of the Civil Service Law. Appointments of all officials
considering that I was born in a Christian family, and was and employees in the judiciary is governed by the Civil Service Law
brought up in the fear of Lord, and had been a consistent officer (Section 5(6), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution). (Emphasis supplied)
of the Church Board, had been a religious leader for so many
years, and had been the organizer of the Music Festival of the CA Disposition
Association of Evangelical Churches of Malungon, Sarangani Via petition for review under Rule 43, petitioner elevated the matter to
Province, thus I was devoted to church work and was known to the CA. 12 She insisted that as a judicial employee, it is the Supreme Court
be of good conduct; and that my friends and acquaintances can and not the CSC that has disciplinary jurisdiction over her.
vouch to that, but I was just forced by circumstances to agree to
the spouses Godfre and Evelyn Decir. 8 (Emphasis added) In a Decision dated November 30, 2004, 13 the CA denied the petition
for lack of merit.
CSC Finding and Penalty
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 The CA noted that petitioner never raised the issue of jurisdiction until powers. 19 Thus, this Court ruled that the Ombudsman cannot justify its
after the CSC ruled against her. Rather, she willingly appeared before the investigation of a judge on the powers granted to it by the Constitution. It
commission, freely admitted her wrongdoing, and even requested for violates the specific mandate of the Constitution granting to the Supreme
clemency. Thus, she was estopped from questioning the Commission's Court supervisory powers over all courts and their personnel; it undermines
jurisdiction. The appellate court opined that while lack of jurisdiction may be the independence of the judiciary. 20
assailed at any stage, a party's active participation in the proceedings before In Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana, 21 this Court held that
a court, tribunal or body will estop such party from assailing its jurisdiction. impersonating an examinee of a civil service examination is an act of
The CA further ruled that a member of the judiciary may be under the dishonesty. But because the offender involved a judicial employee under the
jurisdiction of two different bodies. As a public school teacher or a court administrative supervision of the Supreme Court, the CSC filed the necessary
interpreter, petitioner was part of the civil service, subject to its rules and charges before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), a procedure
regulations. When she committed acts in violation of the Civil Service Law, which this Court validated.
the CSC was clothed with administrative jurisdiction over her. A similar fate befell judicial personnel in Bartolata v. Julaton, 22
Issue involving judicial employees who also impersonated civil service examinees.
Petitioner, through this petition, assigns the lone error that: As in Sta. Ana, the CSC likewise filed the necessary charges before the OCA
because respondents were judicial employees. Finding respondents guilty of
The Honorable Court of Appeals-First Division decided a dishonesty and meting the penalty of dismissal, this Court held that
question of substance in a way not in accord with law and "respondents' machinations reflect their dishonesty and lack of integrity,
jurisprudence, gravely erred in facts and in law, and has sanctioned
rendering them unfit to maintain their positions as public servants and
such departure and grave error because it ignored or was not aware
o f Garcia v. De la Peña, 229 SCRA 766 (1994) and Adm. Matter No. employees of the judiciary." 23 aDHCAE

OCA I.P.I. 97-329-P (CSC v. Ampong) dated January 31, 2001, which Compared to Sta. Ana and Bartolata, the present case involves a
reiterate the rule that exclusive authority to discipline similar violation of the Civil Service Law by a judicial employee. But this case
employees of the judiciary lies with the Supreme Court, in is slightly different in that petitioner committed the offense before her
issuing the questioned decision and resolution; which grave error
appointment to the judicial branch. At the time of commission, petitioner
warrant reversal of the questioned decision and resolution. 14
was a public school teacher under the administrative supervision of the
Put simply, the issue boils down to whether the CSC has administrative DECS and, in taking the civil service examinations, under the CSC. Petitioner
jurisdiction over an employee of the Judiciary for acts committed while said surreptitiously took the CSC-supervised PBET exam in place of another
employee was still with the Executive or Education Department. person. When she did that, she became a party to cheating or dishonesty in
Our Ruling a civil service-supervised examination.
The answer to the question at the outset is in the negative but We rule That she committed the dishonest act before she joined the RTC does
against the petition on the ground of estoppel. not take her case out of the administrative reach of the Supreme Court.
It is true that the CSC has administrative jurisdiction over the civil The bottom line is administrative jurisdiction over a court
service. As defined under the Constitution and the Administrative Code, the employee belongs to the Supreme Court, regardless of whether the
civil service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision, and offense was committed before or after employment in the judiciary.
instrumentality of the government, and government-owned or controlled Indeed, the standard procedure is for the CSC to bring its complaint
corporations. 15 Pursuant to its administrative authority, the CSC is granted against petitioner, a judicial employee, before the OCA. Records show that
the power to "control, supervise, and coordinate the Civil Service the CSC did not adhere to this procedure in the present case.
examinations". 16 This authority grants to the CSC the right to take
However, We are constrained to uphold the ruling of the CSC based
cognizance of any irregularity or anomaly connected with the examinations.
17 on the principle of estoppel. The previous actions of petitioner have
estopped her from attacking the jurisdiction of the CSC. A party who has
However, the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court is
affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal exercising quasi-
given exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and
judicial functions to secure an affirmative relief may not afterwards deny
judicial personnel. 18 By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court
that same jurisdiction to escape a penalty. 24 As this Court declared in
that can oversee the judges' and court personnel's compliance with all laws,
Aquino v. Court of Appeals: 25
rules and regulations. It may take the proper administrative action against
them if they commit any violation. No other branch of government may In the interest of sound administration of justice, such practice
intrude into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of cannot be tolerated. If we are to sanction this argument, then all the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 proceedings had before the lower court and the Court of Appeals would obtain a passing mark. By intentionally practicing a deception to
while valid in all other respects would simply become useless. 26 secure a passing mark, their acts undeniably involve dishonesty. 34
Under the principle of estoppel, a party may not be permitted to adopt This Court has defined dishonesty as the "(d)isposition to lie, cheat,
a different theory on appeal to impugn the court's jurisdiction. 27 In Emin v. deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty,
De Leon, 28 this Court sustained the exercise of jurisdiction by the CSC, while probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness;
recognizing at the same time that original disciplinary jurisdiction over public disposition to defraud, deceive or betray." 35 Petitioner's dishonest act as a
school teachers belongs to the appropriate committee created for the civil servant renders her unfit to be a judicial employee. Indeed, We take
purpose as provided for under the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers. note that petitioner should not have been appointed as a judicial employee
29 It was there held that a party who fully participated in the proceedings
had this Court been made aware of the cheating that she committed in the
before the CSC and was accorded due process is estopped from civil service examinations. Be that as it may, petitioner's present status as a
subsequently attacking its jurisdiction. TcIHDa
judicial employee is not a hindrance to her getting the penalty she deserves.
Petitioner was given ample opportunity to present her side and adduce The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office
evidence in her defense before the CSC. She filed with it her answer to the charged with the dispensation of justice is circumscribed with a heavy
charges leveled against her. When the CSC found her guilty, she moved for a burden or responsibility. The image of a court, as a true temple of justice, is
reconsideration of the ruling. These circumstances all too clearly show that mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who
due process was accorded to petitioner. work thereat, from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel. 36 As
Petitioner's admission of guilt stands. Apart from her full the Court held in another administrative case for dishonesty:
participation in the proceedings before the CSC, petitioner admitted to the . . . Any act which diminishes or tends to diminish the faith of
offense charged — that she impersonated Decir and took the PBET exam in the people in the judiciary shall not be countenanced. We have not
the latter's place. We note that even before petitioner filed a written answer, hesitated to impose the utmost penalty of dismissal for even the
she voluntarily went to the CSC Regional Office and admitted to the charges slightest breach of duty by, and the slightest irregularity in the
against her. In the same breath, she waived her right to the assistance of conduct of, said officers and employees, if so warranted. Such breach
counsel. Her admission, among others, led the CSC to find her guilty of and irregularity detract from the dignity of the highest court of the
land and erode the faith of the people in the judiciary.
dishonesty, meting out to her the penalty of dismissal.
Now, she assails said confession, arguing that it was given without aid xxx xxx xxx
of counsel. In police custodial investigations, the assistance of counsel is As a final point, we take this opportunity to emphasize that no
necessary in order for an extra-judicial confession to be made admissible in quibbling, much less hesitation or circumvention, on the part of any
evidence against the accused in a criminal complaint. If assistance was employee to follow and conform to the rules and regulations
waived, the waiver should have been made with the assistance of counsel. enunciated by this Court and the Commission on Civil Service, should
30 be tolerated. The Court, therefore, will not hesitate to rid its ranks of
But while a party's right to the assistance of counsel is sacred in undesirables who undermine its efforts toward an effective and
proceedings criminal in nature, there is no such requirement in efficient system of justice. 37 (Emphasis added)
administrative proceedings. In Lumiqued v. Exevea, 31 this Court ruled that a We will not tolerate dishonesty for the Judiciary expects the best from
party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel. all its employees. 38 Hindi namin papayagan ang pandaraya sapagkat
Moreover, the administrative body is under no duty to provide the person inaasahan ng Hudikatura ang pinakamabuti sa lahat nitong kawani.
IDAEHT

with counsel because assistance of counsel is not an absolute requirement.

32 WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
Petitioner's admission was given freely. There was no compulsion, SO ORDERED.
threat or intimidation. As found by the CSC, petitioner's admission was Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez,
substantial enough to support a finding of guilt. Corona, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr.,
The CSC found petitioner guilty of dishonesty. It is categorized as "an Leonardo-de Castro and Brion, JJ., concur.
act which includes the procurement and/or use of fake/spurious civil service Nachura, J., took no part. Justice Nachura participated in the present
eligibility, the giving of assistance to ensure the commission or procurement case as Solicitor General.
of the same, cheating, collusion, impersonation, or any other anomalous act
which amounts to any violation of the Civil Service examination." 33
Petitioner impersonated Decir in the PBET exam, to ensure that the latter Footnotes
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 1. Penned by Acting Presiding Justice Eubulo G. Verzola, with Associate Justices 28. G.R. No. 139794, February 27, 2002, 378 SCRA 143. cIHCST

Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Noel G. Tijam, concurring; rollo, pp. 19-27. HCaDIS

29. Republic Act No. 4670 (1966), Sec. 9 states: "Administrative Charges. —
2. Now known as the Examination for Teachers. Administrative charges against a teacher shall be heard initially by a
committee composed of the corresponding School Superintendent of the
3. Formerly Evelyn B. Junio. Division or a duly authorized representative who should at least have the
4. Rollo, p. 34. rank of a division supervisor, where the teacher belongs, as chairman, a
representative of the local, or, in its absence, any existing provincial or
5. Now Department of Education. national teacher's organization and a supervisor of the Division, the last two
to be designated by the Director of Public Schools within thirty days from the
6. Rollo, p. 35. termination of the hearings: Provided, however, That where the school
7. CA rollo, pp. 27-28. superintendent is the complainant or an interested party, all the members of
the committee shall be appointed by the Secretary of Education."
8. Id. at 30.
30. CONSTITUTION (1987), Art. III, Sec. 12 (1). Any person under investigation for
9. Id. at 36. the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right
to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably
10. Id. at 32-38. Motion for Reconsideration dated July 1, 1996. of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he
must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing
11. Records, pp. 45-48. Resolution No. 9671516.
and in the presence of counsel. See also People v. Patungan, G.R. No.
12. CA rollo, pp. 2-16. Petition for Certiorari With Prayer for the Issuance of A Writ 138045, March 14, 2001, 354 SCRA 413; People v. Salcedo, G.R. No. 100920,
of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order dated February June 17, 1997, 273 SCRA 473.
11, 1997.
31. G.R. No. 117565, November 18, 1997, 282 SCRA 125.
13. Rollo, pp. 19-27.
32. Lumiqued v. Exevea, id.
14. Id. at 6.
33. CSC Memorandum Circular No. 15, Series of 1991.
15. CONSTITUTION (1987), Art. IX (B), Secs. 1-2; The Administrative Code (1987),
34. Biteng v. Department of Interior and Local Government, G.R. No. 153894,
Executive Order 292, Sec. 6.
February 16, 2005, 451 SCRA 520.
aDHCAE

16. The Administrative Code (1987), Executive Order 292, Secs. 12 (2) & (7),
35. Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty Against Elizabeth Ting, Court Sec I &
respectively.
Angelita C. Esmerio, Clerk III, Office of Clerk of Court, A.M. 2001-7-SC, July 22,
17. Cruz v. Civil Service Commission, 422 Phil. 236 (2001). 2005, 464 SCRA 1.

18. CONSTITUTION (1987), Art. VIII, Sec. 6. 36. Soliman v. Soriano, 457 Phil. 291 (2003).

Sec. 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all 37. Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty Against Elizabeth Ting, Court Sec I &
courts and the personnel thereof. Angelita C. Esmerio, Clerk III, Office of Clerk of Court, supra note 36, at 15-16.
ICDSca

19. Maceda v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 102781, April 22, 1993, 221 SCRA 464. 38. Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Document
Against Benjamin Katly, A.M. No. 2003-9-SC, March 25, 2004, 426 SCRA 236.
20. Id.
21. A.M. No. P-03-1696, April 30, 2003, 402 SCRA 49.

22. A.M. No. P-02-1638, July 6, 2006, 494 SCRA 433.

23. Bartolata v. Julaton, id. at 440.

24. Aquino v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91896, November 21, 1991, 204 SCRA
240.
25. Id.

26. Id. at 247.

27. Lozon v. National Labor Relations Commission, 310 Phil. 1 (1995).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com