A CLERK of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in Danao City was ordered dismissed from service by the Supreme Court (SC) for dishonesty.
Merle Ramoneda-Pita was held liable for making it appear that she took the civil service eligibility examination when another person took the exam in her behalf 26 years ago.
The specimen signatures in various Personnel Data Sheet (PDS) and the photos that Pita submitted to the court didn’t match the personal details in the seat plan of the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
Tthe High Court also ordered the forfeiture of Pita’s retirement benefits and prohibited her from any re-employment in the government.
The administrative case against Pita stemmed from an anonymous complaint filed before the the CSC.
It said Pita committed an irregularlity in the Career Service Sub-Professional Examination held in Cebu City on July 26, 1987.
The CSC retrieved records of the July 26, 1987 examinations and compared the photographs and signatures of Pita as they appear in the Picture Seat Plan for the exam and her PDS. The photographs and the signatures didn’t match.
Pita denied that someone else took the civil service examination in her behalf. She said she took the civil service exams on July 30, 1986 and not July 26, 1987.
Pita said there were differences in the photos in the Picture Seat Plan and the PDS because they were not taken on the same year and “might have deteriorated in quality over the years.”
She said the difference on her signatures was caused by her low educational attainment which led to her not having a permanent stroke in her signature.
The CSC, however, found her guilty of dishonesty based on the evidence.
In 2005, Pita wrote to former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, appealing for an executive clemency. She said she accepted the CSC decision against her and she vowed to do good.
But while her plea for clemency was pending, the CSC discovered that Pita declared in her PDS that she was not found guilty in any administrative case and that she was civil service eligible.
The case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) which also found Pita liable. The High Court affirmed the ruling of the OCA. Reporter Ador Vincent Mayol