Case Digest (A.M. No. 2011-04-SC)
Facts:
Re: Gross Violation of Civil Service Law on the Prohibition Against Dual Employment and Double Compensation in the Government Service Committed by Mr. Eduardo V. Escala, A.M. No. 2011-04-SC, July 05, 2011, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.The administrative complaint arose from an investigation by the Supreme Court Office of Administrative Services (OAS) into allegations that Eduardo V. Escala (respondent), then SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division, OAS, engaged in dual employment and received double compensation from both the Supreme Court and the Philippine National Police (PNP). Respondent was appointed to the Court on July 14, 2008 and was allowed to assume duties immediately for reasons of exigency, despite incomplete documentary requirements.
An anonymous letter dated March 4, 2009 triggered OAS inquiries which confirmed that respondent remained an active PNP member with the rank of Police Chief Inspector assigned to the Aviation Security Group, and continued to receive PNP salaries while concurrently employed by the Court. Respondent states he had applied for optional retirement from the PNP on January 24, 2008, and claims he believed his retirement would be effective July 14, 2008; in fact, his optional retirement only became effective September 30, 2009.
Respondent was preventively suspended pending parallel PNP Internal Affairs Office and OAS investigations. The OAS directed respondent to explain his conduct by memorandum dated May 6, 2011; respondent filed a letter-comment on May 26, 2011 admitting overlap in employment, offered explanations and apologies, and reported he had returned P560,982.86 to the PNP as restitution for salaries received from July 2008 to September 2009. The OAS report of June 27, 2011 found documentary evidence (PNP service record dated August 26, 2008; clearances dated August–October 2008; a Certificate of Gratuity) inconsistent with respondent’s claim of timely retirement and concluded his appointment to the Court was re-employment rather than a transfer.
The OAS recommended respondent be held liable for gross dishonesty and conduct prejud...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Eduardo V. Escala commit gross dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service by concurrently holding employment with the Supreme Court and the PNP and receiving double compensation?
- If liable, is dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits and prohibition from reemplo...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)