A.M. No. 2011-04-SC - Re: Eduardo vs. Escala

Respondent, Mr. Eduardo V. Escala, was appointed as SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division, Office of Administrative Services (OAS) on July 14, 2008.
His application evidenced his experience and training as a police officer, having served as Chief Inspector of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Aviation Security Group.
Due to exigent circumstances, he was allowed to assume office immediately despite pending submission of some documentary requirements.

An anonymous letter dated March 4, 2009, reached the OAS alleging that Mr. Escala engaged in dual employment by simultaneously rendering services to the Supreme Court and remaining an active member of the PNP.
The letter claimed that respondent received salaries and benefits from both the Court and the PNP, thereby violating the Civil Service Law’s prohibition on dual employment and double compensation.
The OAS conducted inquiries which revealed that before his appointment, he was an active member of the PNP with permanent status and rank as Police Chief Inspector.

Respondent applied for optional retirement from the PNP on January 24, 2008, initially expecting it to be effective within three months but was later advised it would take six months.
Pending finalization of his retirement approval, he applied and was appointed to the position in the Court on July 14, 2008.
Despite his appointment with the Court, he continued being an active member of the PNP and receiving monthly salaries and benefits until his official optional retirement on September 30, 2009.
During approximately 14 months, there was an overlap where he concurrently received compensation from both government agencies.

In his letter-comment dated May 26, 2011, Mr. Escala acknowledged the factual basis of the OAS findings without offering a valid justification.
He admitted that he had been receiving PNP salaries for economic reasons while working at the Court, believing in good faith that such compensation was permissible pending the finalization of his retirement.
He expressed remorse and apologized to both the Court and the PNP for his misconduct.
He later arranged and returned a total amount of P560,982.86 corresponding to the overpaid salaries and allowances from the PNP.

The OAS memorandum dated May 6, 2011, directed the respondent to explain why he should not be charged with gross dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The investigation revealed that respondent had initiated the retirement process only after already being connected with the Court, as supported by documented clearances and service records.
Evidence such as the PNP Service Record (dated August 26, 2008) and other certificates showed he began processing his retirement after his appointment, contradicting his claim of an early application.
The investigation raised serious doubts about his claim of good faith, noting the deliberate delay in refunding the overpayments and his continued receipt of salaries from the PNP while serving at the Court.

Whether Mr. Escala’s simultaneous receipt of salaries and benefits from both the Supreme Court and the PNP violates the Civil Service Law’s prohibition on dual employment and double compensation.

Does his continued receipt of PNP compensation, despite his appointment to a full-time Court position, constitute an act of dual employment?
Is the respondent’s explanation regarding delays in the processing of his retirement papers sufficient to absolve him of the violation?

Whether the respondent’s conduct amounts to gross dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Is his failure to disclose his ongoing employment with the PNP during his tenure at the Court indicative of an intent to defraud the government agencies?
How does the established evidence, including time records and documentary clearances, support or refute his claim of good faith?

The admissibility and credibility of his justification based on alleged procedural delays in retirement processing.

Can the respondent’s argument that his delay in retirement processing was beyond his control be accepted in light of the documentary evidence showing otherwise?
Does the timing of his application for retirement relative to his Court appointment undermine his assertion of acting in good faith?