SUPREME COURT CLEARED RANDY B. ESCOLANGO OF ALL CHARGES

CHARGES lodged against Lawyer Randy B. Escolango, deputy administrator (DA) for Legal Affairs of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) have been dismissed by the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines. “Some quarters try to besmirch my reputation by taking issue of the cases even though those cases have long been dismissed by the Supreme Court,” Escolango told Subic Bay News in an exclusive interview.

The cases stemmed from Escolango’s role in the amicable settlement that enabled his former clients to receive compensation after losing their jobs in 2008 from the dissolution of the Freeport Services Corporation (FSC), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the SBMA engaged in the business of providing general services.

Escolango successfully negotiated the settlement granting 1/2 month salary for every year of service but had to relinquished being lawyer for the some 415 employees to one Atty. Bart O. Dalangin when he was taken in as consultant of SBMA, and later, DA for Legal Affairs. After the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) approved the compromise upon the joint motion of Dalangin and FSC counsel Alan A. Ventura, Escolango, himself, handled the distribution of the compensation to the employees on June 2010.

However, the following month, Dalangin wrote a letter-complaint to then SBMA Chairman Feliciano C. Salonga, accusing, among others, Escolango of Misconduct in Office and Abuse of Authority, also citing non-payment to some of the employees. It turned-out that 380 employees received their share from Escolango while 35 others did not because they disagreed with the terms of the settlement and, therefore, were not part of the settlement.

Escolango said he could not ascertain what Dalangin’s motive was in filing the complaint, having been part of the proceedings, himself, even asking for his attorney’s fees via text messaging.

On November 10, 2010, then SBMA Administrator and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Armand C. Arreza, issued to Escolango a copy of the Formal Charge and Order of Preventive Suspension for the Administrative Offenses of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, Falsification of Official Document, Oppression, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Violation of Section 9, Divestment of RA 6713 of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

Barely over two (2) months later, on January 31, 2011, Arreza issued a Decision “sans formal investigation or hearing,” finding Escolango guilty of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Violation of Section 9, on Divestment of R.A. 6713 of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

He was exonerated from the Charge of Falsification of Official Document for insufficiency of evidence. Grave Misconduct carries the penalty of dismissal, thus, Arreza dismissed Escolango, who filed an appeal to the Civil Service Commission (CSC).

The CSC found partial merit on Escolango’s appeal and absolved him from the charges of Grave Misconduct but upheld the charge with respect to the conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Both the SBMA and Escolango filed their respective motions for reconsideration but the CSC stood firm and refused to reconsider. They then petitioned the Court of Appeals for Review.

Escolango asserted that “it was error for the CSC to have ruled that he is liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service after it found him not liable for the offenses of Grave Misconduct.

The CA found the CSC correct in ruling that Escolango is not liable for Dishonesty, did not violate Section 9 of RA 6713 and that he is not liable for Grave Misconduct. The CA ruled: “Atty. Escolango did not commit any acts which can be considered prejudicial to the best interest of the service; Atty. Escolango’s act of distributing the shares of his former clients in the compromise agreement is not tantamount to a conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

“When Atty. Escolango spearheaded the actual distribution, it was more of an altruistic feeling of meeting his former clients and giving them the fruit of their long years of litigation,” the CA said, he “could not be said to have actually practiced law which can be interpreted as being in conflict with his being DA for Legal Affairs… all the negotiations, drafting and finalization of the terms of the agreement took place prior to Atty. Escolango’s permanent appointment as officer of SBMA.”

The case reached the Supreme Court (SC) which ruled with finality on April 13, 2016 denying the motion for reconsideration. “No further pleading, motions, letters or other communications shall be entertained in this case,” the SC decision said. ###