Sarah Navarra Ampong v Civil Service Commission

GR. No. 167916 Aug.26,2008

Facts:
In Nov. 1991, a certain Evelyn Decir , applied, took and passed the Professional Board
Examination for Teachers (PBET). Decir and petitioner Sarah Ampong were both public school
teachers under DepEd. In Aug. 1993, Ampong transferred to RTC in Sarangani Province as
Court Interpreter III. On July 1994, a woman claiming to be Decir went to the Civil Service
Regional Office to claim a copy of her PBET Certificate of Eligibility and the CSRO office
noticed that the woman do not resemble the woman who took the exam in 1991. It was
petitioner Ampong who took the exams for Decir. A case of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct
Prejudicial to the best interest of the Service were filed against Ampong and Decir on Aug. 23,
1994.
While Decir denied the accusation, petitioner Ampong voluntarily appeared at the CSRO on
Feb.1995 and admitted the wrong doing, she voluntarily waived the right to avail of the services
of a counsel and on March 13, 1995, she gave another sworn admission stating that the husband
of Decir, who is the cousin of her husband, begged her to take the exam in behalf of his wife to
which she acceded without monetary consideration.
On March 21, 1996, CSC found petitioner Ampong and Decir, guilty of dishonesty and
dismissed them from the service with accessory penalties. The PBET rating of Decir was
revoked.
Ruling of CSC and basis:
Petitioner moved for Reconsideration raising the ground of jurisdiction claiming that the
exclusive authority to discipline employees of the judiciary, from where she now belongs, lies
with the Supreme Court and that CSC acted with abuse of discretion. The CSC denied the
motion for reconsideration citing that to allow petitioner to evade administrative liability by
joining another branch of government will be a mockery of the country’s administrative
disciplinary system. The CSC contends that while they do not have administrative supervision
over the employees in the judiciary, it has concurrent jurisdiction over them.
Ruling of CA and basis:
Petition for review under Rule 43 was filed by Ampong in the Court of Appeals and the CA
denied the petition for lack of merit in its decision on Nov. 2004 citing that the issue of
jurisdiction was never raised until the CSC handed down an adverse decision. CA also pointed
out petitioner’s admission of her wrongdoing and request for clemency estopped her from
assailing the jurisdiction of the CSC.
Issue:
Whether or not the CSC has administrative jurisdiction over an employee of the judiciary for acts
committed while still an employee of the Executive or DepEd.
Ruling of the Supreme Court:
No, while the CSC is granted the authority to take cognizance of any irregularity or anomaly
connected with the civil service examination, the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court is
given exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and judicial personnel, whether the
offense was committed before or after employment in the judiciary. In similar cases, the CSC
filed the necessary charges before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) because
respondents were judicial employees. However, we are constrained to uphold the ruling of the
CSC based on the principle of estoppel because the petitioner affirmed and invoke the
jurisdiction of CSC, exercising its quasi-judicial functions to secure an affirmative relief and
deny the same jurisdiction to escape penalty. It was held that a party who fully participated in
the proceedings before the CSC and was accorded due process is estopped from subsequently
attacking its jurisdiction.