Commentary

Misreading Rabe v. Flores

Please read Rabe v. Flores before you spread misinformation about that case. Flores was not dismissed just because of the double compensation. If you read the actual text of the case, the SC took Flores’ failure to disclose her interest in the stall to be of the same level as that of the double compensation charge. In fact, if Flores had attached a copy of her oath form for the judiciary (something which she failed to do), she would have buttressed her claim (which I think was true) that she only started working for the judiciary on June 17, 1991, hence there was really no double compensation even if she received her salary from the Panabo LGU for the period May 16-31, 1991.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.