A.M. No. 2011-04-SC. July 5, 2011.

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, SC CHIEF JUDICIAL STAFF
OFFICER, SECURITY DIVISION, OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES.

Administrative Law; Court Personnel; Dishonesty; Respondent

receipt of salaries from the Philippine National Police (PNP)
despite not rendering any service thereto is a form of deceit; What
dishonesty implies.—The OAS found respondent’s actuation even
amounts to gross dishonesty. His receipt of salaries from the
Philippine National Police (PNP) despite not rendering any
service thereto is a form of deceit. Jurisprudence states that
dishonesty implies a “disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud;
untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or
integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness;
disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.”
Same; Same; Same; Government officials and employees,
whether elected or appointed, are prohibited from concurrently
holding any other office or position in the government.—That
respondent actually rendered services to the PNP, if any, despite
employment in the Court, is inconsequential. The prohibition
against government officials and employees, whether elected or
appointed, from concurrently holding any other office or position
in the government is contained in Section 7, Article IX-B of the
1987 Constitution which provides: x x x Unless otherwise allowed
by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive
official shall hold any other office or employment in the
Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or
their subsidiaries.

_______________

* EN BANC.
 142

142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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, SC
Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division, Office of
Administrative Services.

Same; Same; Same; Respondent has transgressed the

Constitution and the Civil Service Law on the prohibition on dual
employment and double compensation in the government service.—
With the undisputed facts of the case, the OAS considers that
there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that respondent is
liable for gross dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service. His non-disclosure of the material fact that
he was still employed as an active member of the PNP and
receiving his monthly salaries therein during the period that he is
already a Court employee is considered substantial proof that he
tried to cheat/defraud both the PNP and the Court. This is an
affront to the dignity of the Court. Indeed, respondent has
transgressed the Constitution and the Civil Service law on the
prohibition on dual employment and double compensation in the
government service.
Same; Same; Same; Court is left with no choice but to declare
the respondent guilty of gross dishonesty and conduct prejudicial
to the best interest of the service, which are grave offenses punished
by dismissal.—All court personnel ought to live up to the strictest
standards of honesty and integrity, considering that their
positions primarily involve service to the public. For knowingly
and willfully transgressing the prohibition on dual employment
and double compensation, as well as the Court’s rules for its
personnel on conflict of interest, respondent violated the trust and
confidence reposed on him by the Court. Considering the sensitive
and confidential nature of his position, the Court is left with no
choice but to declare the respondent guilty of gross dishonesty and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, which are
grave offenses punished by dismissal.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Gross

Violation of the Civil Service Law on the Prohibition
against Dual Employment and Double Compensation in
the Government Service.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

143
 VOL. 653, JULY 5, 2011 143
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, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division,
Office of Administrative Services.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:
Before us is an administrative case which arose from the
investigation conducted by the Office of Administrative
Services (OAS) in connection with a complaint against Mr.
Eduardo V. Escala, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security
Division, OAS for alleged gross violation of the Civil
Service Law on the prohibition against dual employment
and double compensation in the government service.

I. Antecedents

Respondent was appointed by the Court as SC Chief

Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division, OAS on July 14,
2008. His application papers show he has experience and
training as a police officer, having been employed as Chief
Inspector of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Aviation
Security Group at the time of his appointment in the
Supreme Court.
Immediately upon his appointment on July 14, 2008,
respondent was allowed to assume office and perform his
duties, for reasons of exigency in the service although he
has yet to comply with the submission of all the
documentary requirements for his appointment.
During the course of his employment, an anonymous
letter1 reached the OAS reporting the respondent’s gross
violation of the Civil Service Law on the prohibition against
dual employment and double compensation in the
government service. The letter alleged that respondent
accepted employment,

_______________

1 Anonymous Letter dated March 4, 2009, OAS Report dated June 27,
2011, Annex “A.”

144

144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division,
Office of Administrative Services.

and thus received salaries and other benefits, from the

Court and also from the PNP of which he remained an
active member.
The OAS’ inquiries on this allegation confirmed that
prior to his employment at the Court, respondent was an
active member of the PNP assigned with the Aviation
Security Group—2nd Police Center for Aviation Security at
the Manila Domestic Airport in Pasay City, with a
permanent status and rank of Police Chief Inspector.
Taking the chance to explore his opportunities and skills
outside of the police service, he applied for the position of
SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division, OAS.
While employed in the Court and receiving his regular
compensation, he continued to be a
bona ­fide member of the PNP assigned with the Aviation
Security Group with the same status and rank of Police
Chief Inspector until the date when he optionally retired on
September 30, 2009.
The OAS was also informed that the Internal Affairs
Office (IAO) of the PNP is likewise carrying out a separate
probe and investigation on respondent for the same alleged
gross violation of the Civil Service Law.
Considering the seriousness of the matter, respondent
was preventively suspended by the Court pending the
results of the IAO’s investigations and the separate
administrative investigation of the OAS.2

_______________

2 Id., Annex “B.” In the meantime, Mr. Joery L. Gayanan, SC

Supervising Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division, OAS, was designated
as Officer-in-Charge of the said division during the period that respondent
is under preventive suspension.

145

VOL. 653, JULY 5, 2011 145

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, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division,
Office of Administrative Services.
 In the OAS Memorandum dated May 6, 2011,3
respondent was directed to explain why he should not be
administratively charged with gross dishonesty and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for
violation of the Civil Service Law on the prohibition against
dual employment and double compensation in the
government service.
In his letter-comment dated May 26, 2011,4 respondent
submitted to the findings of the OAS but “humbly implore
your magnanimity not to charge him with gross dishonesty
and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service”5
and offered the following explanation:

2.1 On January 24, 2008, I applied for optional retirement as

a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP). At that time, I
was informed that my application would be effective on March 31,
2008, or a period of three (3) months from its submission date.
2.2 However, I was advised that, as part of the new policy on
optional retirement, the effectivity of my application would be six
(6) months from date of its submission, or on July 14, 2008.
2.3 Pending the approval of my application for optional
retirement, I applied with the Honorable Supreme Court for the
position of Chief Security Officer. In the course of my interview, I
declared that the Philippine National Police (PNP) had yet to
formally approve my application for optional retirement.
2.4 Due to the urgent need to fill-in the said vacant position I
was hired by the Honorable Supreme Court as its employee which
took effect on July 14, 2008. From then on, and as shall be further
discussed hereunder, I have faithfully discharged my duties and
responsibilities in order to ensure the safety and security of the

_______________

3 Id., Annex “C.”

4 Id., Annex “D.”
5 Id.

146

146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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, SC
Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division, Office of
Administrative Services.

Honorable Supreme Court, as an institution; the Honorable

Justices; and the court personnel.
2.5 In good faith, and without concealing any material fact
from the Honorable Supreme Court, I submitted all the required
documents and clearances in support of my appointment. At that
time, I had no reason to doubt that my optional retirement would
be deemed effective on July 14, 2008-which date actually
coincided with the effectivity of my employment with the
Honorable Supreme Court.
2.6 But, then, as fate had it, my application for optional
retirement was not immediately acted upon by the Philippine
National Police (PNP) within the original period of my request. As
it is, such application was bypassed several times, and I was
considered optionally retired on September 30, 2009.
2.7 During the period of almost fourteen (14) months, my
employment with the Honorable Supreme Court overlapped with
that of the Philippine National Police (PNP). In the interim, I
likewise received my corresponding monthly salaries from the
Philippine National Police (PNP). Not for anything else, I did so
for economic reasons.
2.8 Without proffering any justification for may actions,
which I now realize to be totally uncalled for, I was then of the
honest impression that I was still entitled to such monthly
salaries pending the approval of my application for optional
retirement which dragged for a longer period of time with no fault
on my part.”6

Offering no justification and admitting his fault, and

cognizant of the consequences of his wrong judgment,
respondent extends his apologies to the Court and to the
PNP. He also informed the OAS that he made
arrangements with the PNP for the return, as in fact he
had already returned, the total amount of P 560,982.86
representing his salaries and allowances which he received
from the PNP covering the period

_______________

6 Id.

147

VOL. 653, JULY 5, 2011 147

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, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division,
Office of Administrative Services.

July 2008 to September 2009.7 He allegedly made such

restitution to shield the PNP from undue prejudice and to
erase the stigma which the incident has caused upon his
person and honor.
Finally, advancing his track record of good performance
both in the PNP and the Court, respondent seeks
compassion and prays that the consequences be tempered.

II. Recommendation

In its report to the Court dated June 27, 2011, the OAS
presented its findings that by respondent’s own admission,
without offering any justification, his acts have prejudiced
the government. His offer of mitigating circumstance—
delay in the processing of his retirement papers—is
unacceptable as records of the PNP will contradict this.
The Service Record issued by the PNP in his favor for
retirement purposes was dated August 26, 2008.8 Likewise,
his Certificates of Clearances, namely: (a) no pending
administrative case was dated August 13, 2008;9 (b) no
money accountability was dated October 29, 200810 and; (c)
property accountability/responsibility was dated October
31, 2008.11 These documents clearly show that he only
started processing the requirements for his application for
optional retirement when he was already connected with
the Court.
The OAS found respondent’s claim that he applied for
optional retirement as early as January 2008 to be merely
an

_______________

7 Id., Annex “E.”

8 Id., Annex “F.”
9 Id., Annex “G.”
10 Id., Annex “H.”
11 Id., Annex “I.”

148

148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division,
Office of Administrative Services.

afterthought. The OAS further noted that the vacancy for

the position of SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer of the
Security Division existed only after April 30, 2008. Such
circumstances lead the OAS to conclude that respondent
first made clear to be appointed to the Court prior to filing
his application for retirement to be sure that he transfers
to another government agency, at the same time enjoying
the fruits of his retirement from the PNP. It should be
noted that governing law on retirement of members of the
PNP is different from those with the Court. If the law is the
same, respondent’s employment with the Court is simply
one of “transfer”. However, his application to and
subsequent appointment to the Court is one of
reemployment as evidenced by his sworn Certificate of
Gratuity12 which he submitted to the OAS and where he
clearly indicated that the inclusive dates of employment
with the PNP was from March 29, 1999 to July 13, 2008,
and that the cause of his separation was optional
retirement.
The OAS thus found respondent’s indirect claim of good
faith unavailing. His regular receipt of his salaries from
the PNP despite presumably exclusively working with the
Court implies a deliberate intent to give unwarranted
benefit to himself and undue prejudice to the government
especially so by his regular submission of monthly/daily
time record as a mandatory requirement for inclusion in
the payroll.
The OAS also found that respondent became aware of
the approval of his application for retirement as early as
September 30, 2009. Notwithstanding such knowledge, he
did not immediately refund his overpayment, if that was
indeed the case, and that his act of returning his salaries
after the period of 20 months was also a mere afterthought
as he did so only because the Court became aware of it and
directed him to

_______________

12 Id., Annex “J.”

149

VOL. 653, JULY 5, 2011 149

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, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division,
Office of Administrative Services.

explain. Would he have done so if no report of his actuation

was ever brought to the attention of the Court? The lapse of
almost 2 years without him doing so speaks of his intent
not to return the same.

Good faith, here understood, is an intangible and abstract quality

with no technical meaning or statutory definition, and it
encompasses, among other things, an honest belief, the absence of
malice and the absence of design to defraud or to seek an
unconscionable advantage. An individual’s personal good faith is
a concept of his own mind and, therefore, may not conclusively be
determined by his protestations alone. It implies honesty of
intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which
ought to put the holder upon inquiry. The essence of good faith lies
in an honest belief in the validity of one’s right, ignorance of a
superior claim, and absence of intention to overreach another.13

The OAS found respondent’s actuation even amounts to

gross dishonesty. His receipt of salaries from the PNP
despite not rendering any service thereto is a form of
deceit. Jurisprudence states that dishonesty implies a
“disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud;
untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty,
probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and
straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or
betray.”14
That respondent actually rendered services to the PNP,
if any, despite employment in the Court, is inconsequential.
The prohibition against government officials and
employees, whether elected or appointed, from concurrently
holding any

_______________

13 PNB v. De Jesus, 458 Phil. 454, 459-460; 411 SCRA 557, 561 (2003).
14 Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) vs.
Rilloraza, 359 SCRA 525, citing Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth ed., p. 468,
1990.

150

150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division,
Office of Administrative Services.

other office or position in the government is contained in

Section 7, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution which
provides:
“x x x
Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of
his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or
employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.”

The prohibition on dual employment and double

compensation in the government service is further specified
under Sections 1 and 2, Rule XVIII of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of E.O. No. 292, viz.:

Sec. 1. No appointive official shall hold any other office or

employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charters or their subsidiaries,
unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his
position.
Sec. 2. No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall
receive additional, double, or indirect compensation, unless
specifically authorized by law, xxxxx.

Moreover, Section 5, Canon III of the Code of Conduct

for Court Personnel, specifically provides that:

“Sec. 5. The full-time position in the Judiciary of every court

personnel shall be the personnel’s primary employment. For purposes of
this Code, “primary employment” means the position that consumes the
entire normal working hours of the court personnel and requires the
personnel’s exclusive attention in performing official duties.

151

VOL. 653, JULY 5, 2011 151

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, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division,
Office of Administrative Services.

Outside employment may be allowed by the head of office provided it

complies with all of the following requirements:
(a) The outside employment is not with a person or entity that
practices law before the courts or conducts business with the
Judiciary;
(b) The outside employment can be performed outside of normal
working hours and is not incompatible with the performance of the
court personnel’s duties and responsibilities;
 (c) The outside employment does not require the practice of law;
Provided, however, that court personnel may render services as
professor, lecturer, or resource person in law schools, review or
continuing education centers or similar institutions;
(d) The outside employment does not require or induce the court
personnel to disclose confidential information acquired while
performing duties; and
(e) The outside employment shall not be with the legislative or
executive branch of government, unless specifically authorized by
the Supreme Court.
Where a conflict of interest exists, may reasonably appear to exist, or
where the outside employment reflects adversely on the integrity of the
Judiciary, the court personnel shall not accept the outside employment.”

With the undisputed facts of the case, the OAS considers

that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that
respondent is liable for gross dishonesty and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service. His non-
disclosure of the material fact that he was still employed as
an active member of the PNP and receiving his monthly
salaries therein during the period that he is already a
Court employee is considered substantial proof that he
tried to cheat/defraud both the PNP and the Court. This is
an affront to the dignity
152

152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division,
Office of Administrative Services.

of the Court. Indeed, respondent has transgressed the

Constitution and the Civil Service law on the prohibition
on dual employment and double compensation in the
government service.
Thus, after its due investigation, the OAS submitted its
report to the Court finding respondent guilty of the charges
and recommending:
a. that Mr. Eduardo V. Escala, SC Chief Judicial Staff
Officer, Security Division, Office of Administrative
Services, be held liable for gross dishonesty and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
for not disclosing the fact that despite accepting
employment with and receiving salaries from the
Supreme Court, he is still receiving his salaries and
 benefits from the Philippine National Police as an
active member thereof; and
b. that he be dismissed from the service with forfeiture
of all benefits, except accrued leave credits, if he has
any, and with prohibition from reemployment in any
branch, agency or instrumentality of the government
including government-owned or controlled
15
corporations.
We fully agree with the findings of the OAS and adopt
its recommendations.
All court personnel ought to live up to the strictest
standards of honesty and integrity, considering that their
positions primarily involve service to the public. For
knowingly and willfully transgressing the prohibition on
dual employment and double compensation, as well as the
Court’s rules

_______________

15 Supra, note 1, pg. 7.

153

VOL. 653, JULY 5, 2011 153

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, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division,
Office of Administrative Services.

for its personnel on conflict of interest, respondent violated

the trust and confidence reposed on him by the Court.
Considering the sensitive and confidential nature of his
position, the Court is left with no choice but to declare the
respondent guilty of gross dishonesty and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service, which are
grave offenses punished by dismissal.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Eduardo V.
Escala, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division,
OAS GUILTY of gross dishonesty and conduct prejudicial
to the best interest of the service, and imposes on him the
penalty of DISMISSAL from the service and forfeiture of
all benefits with prejudice to re-employment in any
government agency, including government-owned and
controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.
 Corona (C.J.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De
Castro, Brion, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama,
Jr., Perez, Mendoza and Sereno, JJ., concur.
Peralta, J., On Leave.

Eduardo V. Escala dismissed for gross dishonesty and

conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, with
forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-
employment in government service.

Note.—Dishonesty is a serious offense which reflects a

person’s character and exposes the moral decay which
virtually destroys his honor, virtue and integrity. (Office of
the Court Administrator vs. Bermejo, 548 SCRA 219 [2008])
——o0o——

© Copyright 2024 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.