Title
Re: Eduardo vs. Escala
Case
A.M. No. 2011-04-SC
Decision Date
Jul 5, 2011
A Supreme Court employee held dual government roles, receiving salaries from both, violating Civil Service laws and the Constitution, leading to dismissal.

Case Summary (A.M. No. 2011-04-SC)

Antecedents

Eduardo V. Escala was appointed as SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer on July 14, 2008. Prior to this appointment, he was a Chief Inspector with the Philippine National Police (PNP) Aviation Security Group. Although he began working with the Supreme Court immediately upon appointment, he had not submitted all necessary documents. Following an anonymous tip regarding his alleged dual employment and double compensation, the OAS initiated an investigation, discovering that Escala remained a bonafide PNP member until his optional retirement on September 30, 2009.

Allegations and Investigations

An investigation launched by the OAS revealed that Escala received salaries from both the Supreme Court and the PNP concurrently, which constitutes a violation of the Civil Service Law against dual employment and double compensation. Preventively suspended during the investigation, Escala later admitted to the essential facts of the case and sought leniency from the Court for the charges of gross dishonesty. He claimed that delays in his optional retirement application caused the overlap in employment.

Respondent's Defense

In his defense, Escala explained that he applied for optional retirement in January 2008 but believed his appointment with the Supreme Court coincided with its effectivity. He stated that the delayed approval of his retirement application and economic considerations influenced his decision to accept the position at the Supreme Court. Although he asserted good faith intentions, he acknowledged a lack of justification for his actions, offering to restitute salaries received from the PNP during the overlap.

OAS Findings and Recommendations

The OAS report, submitted on June 27, 2011, concluded that Escala's actions had prejudiced the government. The OAS refuted his claims of good faith, pointing to documentation showing he began processing retirement requirements only after accepting his position with the Court. The OAS emphasized that the simultaneous receipt of salaries indicated deceit and a deliberate attempt to gain undue benefits, thus categorizing his actions under gross dishonesty.

Applicable Law

The Court referenced Section 7, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits government employees from holding dual positions unless permitted by law, as well as Sections 1 and 2, Rule XVIII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V, E.O. No. 292, which further detail the prohibitions against dua

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.