SARAH P. AMPONG v.

CIVIL SLRVICL COMMISSION

G.R. No. J679J6, 26 August 2008, LN BANC, (Reyes, R.1., J.)

.avivi.tratire ;vri.aictiov orer a covrt evto,ee betovg. to tbe vreve Covrt, regarate.. of rbetber tbe offev.e
ra. covvittea before or after evto,vevt iv tbe ;vaiciar,.

During the Proessional Board Lxamination or 1eachers ,PBL1, a certain Lelyn Junio-Decir
applied or and took the examination. She passed with a rating o 4.2.

At the time o the PBL1 examinations, petitioner Sarah P. Ampong and Decir were public
school teachers under the superision o the Department o Lducation, Culture and Sports ,DLCS,.
Later, Ampong transerred to the Regional 1rial Court ,R1C, in Alabel, Sarangani Proince, where she
was appointed as Court Interpreter III.

On July 5, 1994, a woman representing hersel as Lelyn Decir went to the Ciil Serice
Regional Oice ,CSRO, No. XI, Daao City, to claim a copy o her PBL1 Certiicate o Lligibility.
During the course o the transaction, the CSRO personnel noticed that the woman did not resemble the
picture o the examinee in the Picture Seat Plan ,PSP,. Upon urther probing, it was conirmed that the
person claiming the eligibility was dierent rom the one who took the examination. It was petitioner
Ampong who took and passed the examinations under the name Lelyn Decir.

1he CSRO conducted a preliminary inestigation and determined the existence o a riva facie
case against Decir and Ampong or Dishonesty, Grae Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest o the Serice.

1he Ciil Serice Commission ,CSC, ound petitioner Ampong and Decir guilty o dishonesty
and ordered their dismissal rom the serice.

Ampong moed or reconsideration, raising or the irst time the issue o jurisdiction. CSC
denied the motion. Petitioner Ampong appealed to the Court o Appeals which also denied the petition.
lence, this petition.

ISSUL:

\hether or not the CSC has administratie jurisdiction oer an employee o the Judiciary or
acts committed while said employee was still with the Lxecutie or Lducation Department

HLLD:

Petition DLNILD.

1he answer to the question at the outset is in the negatie but the Court rules against the petition
on the ground o estoppel.

It is true that the CSC has administratie jurisdiction oer the ciil serice. As deined under the
Constitution and the Administratie Code, the ciil serice embraces eery branch, agency, subdiision,
and instrumentality o the goernment, and goernment-owned or controlled corporations. Pursuant to
its administratie authority, the CSC is granted the power to control, superise, and coordinate the Ciil
Serice examinations.` 1his authority grants to the CSC the right to take cognizance o any irregularity
or anomaly connected with the examinations.

However, the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court is given exclusive
administrative supervision over all courts and judicial personnel. By irtue o this power, it is only
the Supreme Court that can oersee the judges` and court personnel`s compliance with all laws, rules and
regulations. It may take the proper administratie action against them i they commit any iolation. No
other branch o goernment may intrude into this power, without running aoul o the doctrine o
separation o powers. 1hus, the Court ruled that the Ombudsman cannot justiy its inestigation o a
judge on the powers granted to it by the Constitution. It iolates the speciic mandate o the
Constitution granting to the Supreme Court superisory powers oer all courts and their personnel, it
undermines the independence o the judiciary.

Compared to ta. .va and artotata, the present case inoles a similar iolation o the Ciil
Serice Law by a judicial employee. But this case is slightly dierent in that Ampong committed the
oense before her appointment to the judicial branch. At the time o commission, Ampong was a
public school teacher under the administratie superision o the DLCS and, in taking the ciil serice
examinations, under the CSC. Ampong surreptitiously took the CSC-superised PBL1 exam in place o
another person. \hen she did that, she became a party to cheating or dishonesty in a ciil serice-
superised examination.

1hat she committed the dishonest act beore she joined the R1C does not take her case out o
the administratie reach o the Supreme Court.

1he bottom line is 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.

Indeed, the standard procedure is or the CSC to bring its complaint against a judicial employee
beore the OCA. Records show that the CSC did not adhere to this procedure in the present case.

loweer, the Court is constrained to uphold the ruling o the CSC based on the principle o
estoppel. 1he preious actions o Ampong hae estopped her rom attacking the jurisdiction o the
CSC. A party who has airmed and inoked the jurisdiction o a court or tribunal exercising quasi-
judicial unctions to secure an airmatie relie may not aterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape
a penalty.

Ampong`s dishonest act as a ciil serant renders her unit to be a judicial employee. Indeed, the
Court takes note that petitioner should not hae been appointed as a judicial employee had this Court
been made aware o the cheating that she committed in the ciil serice examinations. Be that as it may,
Ampong`s present status as a judicial employee is not a hindrance to her getting the penalty she deseres.

1he conduct and behaior o eeryone connected with an oice charged with the dispensation
o justice is circumscribed with a heay burden or responsibility. 1he image o a court, as a true temple
o justice, is mirrored in the conduct, oicial or otherwise, o the men and women who work thereat,
rom the judge to the least and lowest o its personnel. 1he Court will not tolerate dishonesty or the
Judiciary expects the best rom all its employees.