Scribd
Upload
42 views1 page

In Re Eduardo Escala

A complaint was filed against Eduardo Escala for accepting employment and salaries from both the Supreme Court and the Philippine National Police simultaneously. The Court found Escala guilty of gross dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the service for failing to disclose his ongoing employment with the PNP while working for the Court and receiving compensation from both, in violation of the prohibition on dual employment and double compensation in the government.

Uploaded by

Kirk Labowski
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
42 views1 page

In Re Eduardo Escala

A complaint was filed against Eduardo Escala for accepting employment and salaries from both the Supreme Court and the Philippine National Police simultaneously. The Court found Escala guilty of gross dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the service for failing to disclose his ongoing employment with the PNP while working for the Court and receiving compensation from both, in violation of the prohibition on dual employment and double compensation in the government.

Uploaded by

Kirk Labowski
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

In re Eduardo Escala

Facts:
A complaint was filed against the respondent alleging that he accepted employment as Chief Judicial
Staff Officer of the Supreme Court, and thus received salaries and other benefits as such, while still
remaining an active member and officer of the Philippine National Police (PNP).

Issue:
WoN Respondent Escala is guilty of gross dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
service warranting dismissal, in violation of the Civil Service Law?

Held:
The Court found that respondent was 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 during the period that he was already a Court
employee is considered substantial proof that he tried to cheat/defraud both the PNP and the Court.
Respondent transgressed the Constitution and the Civil Service law on the prohibition on dual
employment and double compensation in the government service.

You might also like