RE: (a) REQUEST OF ASSISTANT A.M. No.03-10-05-SC
COURT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
UPGRADING OF THEIR RANK, Present:
SALARY AND PRIVILEGES UPON
EFFECTIVITY OF REPUBLIC ACT
NO. 9282 ELEVATING THE
COURT PANGANIBAN,
C.J.,
OF TAX APPEALS AND (b)
GRANT PUNO,
OF SPECIAL DISTORTION ALLO- QUISUMBING,
WANCE TO POSITIONS IN THE YNARES-SANTIAGO,
JUDICIARY WITH RANK OF SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
JUDGES OF METROPOLITAN CARPIO,
TRIAL COURTS, ASSISTANT AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CLERK OF COURT OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS AND
CARPIO-MORALES,
DIVISION CLERKS OF COURT CALLEJO, SR.,
OF THE COURT OF APPEALS,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Promulgated:
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
RE: REQUEST FOR THE GRANT OF A.M. No. 03-11-25-SC
SPECIAL DISTORTION ALLOWANCE
TO POSITIONS IN THE JUDICIARY
WITH THE RANK OF METROPOLITAN
TRIAL COURT JUDGES PARTICULARLY
THE FIVE (5) EXECUTIVE CLERKS OF
COURT III OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN,
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
R E S O L U T I O N
Tinga, J.:
On 1 October 2004, the Court issued a resolution clarifying the application of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9282 and R.A. No. 9227 on the rank, salary and privileges of the Assistant Court Administrators (ACAs), Assistant Clerk of Court (ACC) and Division Clerks of Court (DCCs) of the Court of Appeals (CA), and the Executive Clerks of Court (ECCs) of the Sandiganbayan. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:
ACCORDINGLY, the request of the Assistant Court
Administrators to upgrade their salaries and privileges to that of a Presiding
Justice of the Court of Tax Appeals is DENIED.
The following are hereby GRANTED the Special Allowance
under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9227 from
(1) The Assistant Court Administrators, the allowance of
a Regional Trial Court judge with the highest earned increment;
(2) The Assistant Clerk of Court and the Division
Clerks of Court of the Court of Appeals, and the Executive Clerks of Court of
the Sandiganbayan, the allowance of a Metropolitan Trial Court judge.
SO ORDERED.
The resolution led to the filing of requests by certain court officials for their inclusion in the implementation of the law, as well as the clarification and reconsideration of the resolution.
On
A
letter of the same nature dated
These requests were referred to the Office of the Chief Attorney (OCAT) for study and recommendation. In separate reports, the OCAT recommended the granting of the requests.[3] Since the Court had earlier granted the positions of Reporter II and ECC III the judicial rank of METC judge entitled to the same privilege as other officials in the CA with the same judicial rank, the OCAT recommended that the MeTC judge’s allowance be extended to Attys. Tablate and Apolinario.
The recommendation of the OCAT is well taken at this point. As we had earlier stated in the resolution of 1 October 2004, the allowances granted under R.A. No. 9227 should be extended to holders of positions with the equivalent rank of METC judges, because although such officers do not perform the same functions as the METC judge, the law recognizes the substantial equality in the roles they play in the Judiciary as against judges and thus conferred upon them such rank. The positions of CA Reporter II and CTA ECC III should be placed at par, in rank, salary and privileges, with their counterparts in the Judiciary who have the rank, salary and privileges of an METC judge. Hence, it is but proper that the CA Reporter II and CTA ECC III be granted the allowance of an METC judge.
On P930.75 of the
The FMBO’s Memorandum was likewise referred to the OCAT for evaluation, report and recommendation. In its Report dated 10 March 2005, the OCAT recommended that ACAs Antonio H. Dujua and Ismael G. Khan, Jr., who occupied the positions of ACA even before the promulgation of the 1 October 2004 Resolution, be allowed to receive SAJ based on their actual salaries including earned step increments and longevity pay until they have moved out of their positions, with the Resolution applied only to the successors to their position, and that ACA Reuben P. de la Cruz be entitled to SAJ prescribed in the 1 October 2004 Resolution, that is, his allowance is to be computed based on SG 29. He should also not be required to refund the excess of the amount of SAJ he already received as he is deemed to have acted in good faith in receiving the excess. The OCAT further recommended a review of the judicial ranking for all Court officials as a whole.
In recommending that the SAJ of ACAs Dujua and Khan be computed based on their actual salaries including step increments and longevity pay, the OCAT relied on the Court’s previous resolution[6] which clarified the term “basic monthly salary” to refer to the actual basic monthly salary of Justices and judges, including step increments and longevity pay, and excluding PERA, extraordinary allowance, RATA, and other forms of judicial compensation. Going by this definition, no two Justices or judges would receive the same amount of basic monthly salary and, consequently, SAJ, since the basis for the computation thereof would vary from the length of service of one official to the other. It would thus be unfair to grant ACAs a distortion allowance equivalent to the allowance of a RTC judge with the highest earned increment if that ACA has been in the judicial service for more than five years, the OCAT opined. In addition, since the Special Allowance has been interpreted by the Court as actually forming part of basic salary,[7] such special allowance may not be decreased in amount without violating Sec. 10, Art. VIII of the Constitution. Moreover, per the principle of vested right, ACAs Dujua and Khan have acquired a right to the amount of Special Allowance computed on the basis of SG 30 with earned step increments and longevity pay.
As
to ACA de la Cruz, he was appointed to the position of ACA after the
promulgation of the
Furthermore, the OCAT believes that a similar problem in the judicial ranking and computation of SAJ of other officials in the court, specifically the Assistant Clerk of Court and the Division Clerks of Court, exists which may necessitate a review of qualification standards and judicial ranking for these positions.
On
We deal with the requests of the FMBO and ACA de la Cruz jointly.
It would be best to trace the history of the creation of the CTA and OCA and the relevant positions under them in order to better understand their place in the hierarchy of courts. Thus:
The
CTA was created by R.A. No. 1125[11] in
1954. The CTA’s standing in the
hierarchy of courts in our jurisdiction, before its elevation to a collegiate
tribunal by virtue of R.A. No. 9282, was that of a specialized court of limited
jurisdiction.[12] It was not at the same level as the CA, since
its decisions may be appealed thereto, and it was not also a trial court. Under Section 1 of R.A. No. 1125, the
Presiding Judge of the CTA had the same qualifications, rank, category and
privileges as the Presiding Judge of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) while
the Associate Judge of the CTA had the same qualifications, rank, category and
privileges of a member of the CIR. In Kaisahan
ng mga Manggagawa sa La Campana v. Hon. Caluag,[13] the
CIR was equal in rank with the Courts of First Instance. On
Presidential Decree No. 828[15] created the Office of the Court Administrator and granted the Court Administrator the same rank, privileges, and compensation as those of the Presiding Justice of the CA. The three DCAs created were given the same rank, privileges and compensation as those of Associate Justices of the CA. Hence, the Court Administrator enjoyed SG 31 and the DCAs, SG 30.
On 20 June 1995, the Court en banc issued a resolution giving the Clerk of Court (COC) the rank, salary and privileges of an Associate Justice of the CA, the ACC and the DCCs the rank, salary and privileges of a Presiding Judge of a Specialized Court (CTA), and the Deputy COCs and Chiefs of Offices and Executive Officers the rank, salary and privileges of RTC judges.
On
R.A. No. 9282 elevated the rank of the CTA to that of a collegiate court with special jurisdiction in the same level as the Court of Appeals and such elevation necessitated the increase in rank, salary, and privileges of its Presiding Judge and Associate Judges to Presiding Justice and Associate Justices, respectively. However, such elevation of rank, salary and privileges of the CTA Presiding Judge to that of CA Presiding Justice did not translate to the elevation to the same level of other positions vested with the judicial rank of CTA Presiding Judge.
The
The
Resolution of
However, we cannot discount the fact that the law accords the DCAs and the ACAs the same SG 30 despite the difference in their rank and functions. There is thus, merit to the concerns expressed by the FMBO and the OCAT of diminution of salaries and benefits and distortion in the judicial hierarchy.
Sec. 2 of R.A. No. 9227 clearly provides that the concerned officials shall be granted special allowances equivalent to 100% of the basic monthly salary specified for their respective salary grades under the Salary Standardization Law. Under the 1 October 2004 Resolution, it was held that the ACAs cannot be accorded an allowance equivalent to that granted the CA Presiding Justice (who has SG 31), for that is the allowance to be received by the Court Administrator (who has a rank equivalent to a CA Presiding Justice and SG 31), and that is also higher than what the DCAs will receive, which is equivalent to the allowance of a CA Associate Justice.
However, by the concept of vested right, ACAs can be granted a special allowance computed on the basis of their salary grade which is SG 30. A “vested right” is one which is absolute, complete, and unconditional, the exercise of which no obstacle exists, and which is immediate and perfect in itself and not dependent upon a contingency. To be vested in its accurate legal sense, a right must be complete and consummated, and one of which the person to whom it belongs cannot be divested without his consent.[17]
The Court had previously held that the basis of the computation of the “basic monthly salary” under R.A. No. 9227 is the actual basic monthly salary of justices and judges, including step increments and longevity pay, and excluding PERA, extraordinary allowance, RATA, and other forms of judicial compensation.[18] It had also declared that the special allowance under R.A. No. 9227 is intended to be part of the basic salary of justices, judges, and all other positions in the judiciary of equivalent rank.[19] It cannot be denied then that these concerned officials have acquired a right to the amount of special allowance computed on the basis of their actual basic monthly salary. Their entitlement to the special allowance equivalent to their actual basic monthly salary has become vested by virtue of the application of the law. Granting them an allowance lower than their actual basic monthly salary would even constitute a violation of the constitutional provision against diminution of their salaries and benefits.[20]
The
position of CTA Presiding Judge has been eliminated with the promulgation of
R.A. No. 9282, but the entitlement to the special allowance under R.A. No. 9227
of the holders of positions with such equivalent rank has already been
ascertained in the
The Court cannot help but notice though that there is a need to review the hierarchy and ranking of court officials in view of the elevation of the CTA to a collegiate tribunal and the consequent abolition of the position of CTA Presiding Judge. There is confusion in the judicial ranking of some court positions resulting in disparity in their corresponding salaries and other emoluments. In this instance, the position of CTA Presiding Judge has become obsolete, but the positions which have the equivalent rank, salary and privileges of a presiding judge of a specialized court subsist and retain the same rank. There are other positions that were affected by the elevation of the CTA’s level in the judicial hierarchy. For one, the Assistant Chancellor of the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) was granted “the same compensation and benefits as a Presiding Judge of a specialized court,”[21] but since there are now two specialized courts in the same level of judicial hierarchy, namely the CTA and the Sandiganbayan, the use of the term “Presiding Judge” engenders doubt as to which court is being referred to, especially since the Resolution granting such compensation and benefits to the Assistant Chancellor was promulgated after R.A. No. 9282 was passed into law and therefore could not have referred to the CTA. Arguments have also been raised pertaining to the functions being served by the DCAs and the ACAs, in the main expressing the views that the two positions perform the same roles but have different ranks and salary grades. The OCAT had previously pointed out that while officials of the Court of Appeals have been granted the rank, salary and privileges of a MeTC judge, no official in the Supreme Court has been similarly privileged, evincing a piecemeal approach to the matter that brings down the morale of officials in the judiciary. The OCAT also especially mentions the suspension of the implementation of the Resolution dated 3 August 2004 in A.M. No. 04-6-08-SC entitled Re: Request of the Chief of Administrative Services for Clarification as to Judicial Ranking, Salary and Privileges of the Assistant Clerk of Court and Division Clerks of Court in view of the Effectivity of Republic Act No. 9282.
Verily, the matter of judicial ranking is a sensitive and important issue in the judiciary; hence, it has been periodically raised before the Court in other different administrative matters. The restructuring of the positions in the judiciary is the key to rectifying this problem of distortion. The reassessment of the proper hierarchical order of positions in the judiciary, including their ranks, salaries and privileges, is within the Court’s administrative power and a consequence of the Judiciary’s fiscal autonomy to allocate and utilize its resources with the wisdom and dispatch that its needs may require.[22]
Hence, a review of the Resolution Reorganizing and Strengthening the Office of the Court Administrator dated 24 October 1996 is in order, particularly in clarifying the rank of ACAs and other holders of positions with equivalent rank of CTA Presiding Judge, such as the ACC and DCCs, in view of the abolition of the position of CTA Presiding Judge with the enactment of R.A. No. 9282. A thorough study and cogitation of the overhauling of the hierarchy of positions in the judiciary must be considered as a more permanent solution. For this purpose, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) is directed to make the review and submit its recommendations.
Action
on the request of the ACAs to upgrade their salaries and privileges to that of
a CTA Presiding Justice, and that of ACA de la Cruz that ACAs be granted the
rank, salary and privileges of a CA Associate Justice, is deferred pending
submission of the report and recommendations of the OCA.
WHEREFORE, the following are GRANTED
the Special Allowance under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9227 from
(1) The Chief Reporter or Reporter II of the Court of Appeals and the Executive Clerk of Court III of the Court of Tax Appeals, the allowance of a Metropolitan Trial Court judge; and
(2) The Division Clerks of Court and Assistant Clerks of Court of the Supreme Court, the allowance equivalent to 100% of the basic monthly salary specified for the salary grade for their position which is SG 30.
The
dispositive portion of the Resolution of
The
dispositive portion of the Resolution of
The Court orders the IMMEDIATE RELEASE of the amounts equivalent to the distortion pay the aforenamed concerned officials are entitled to, subject to the availability of funds.
The Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to study and review the Resolution dated 24 October 1996 Reorganizing and Strengthening the Office of the Court Administrator with the end in view of addressing the distortions consequent to the abolition of the position of Presiding Judge of the Court of Tax Appeals with the enactment of Republic Act No. 9282 and restructuring the hierarchy of positions in the judiciary and to SUBMIT a report and recommendations thereon within thirty (30) days from receipt of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Associate
Justice |
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate
Justice |
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate
Justice |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate
Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate
Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
[2]Re:
In the Matter of Upgrading or Reclassification of the Positions of Executive
Clerk of Court II (SG 27) and Executive Clerk of Court I (SG 26), Court of Tax
Appeals; minute resolution dated
[4]As
prepared by the Department of Budget and Management pursuant to R.A. No. 6758, The
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
[5]Art. VIII, Sec. 10 states: “The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme court, and of judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law. During their continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased.”
[6]Resolution
of
[7]Per
Resolution dated
[8]Per A.
M. No. 99-5-08-SC dated
[9]This is
a consolidated Memorandum submitted by the OCAT dealing with the effect of R.A.
No. 9282 on the hierarchy of positions and judicial rank in the Court, in
response to the request of ACAs Antonio H. Dujua, Ismael G. Khan, Jr., and
Carlos L. de Leon that their salaries and privileges be upgraded in view of the
effectivity of RA. No. 9282, and the request of Deputy Clerk of Court Eden T.
Candelaria for clarification of the judicial ranking, salary and privileges of
the SC Assistant Clerk of Court, SC Division Clerks of Court, and SC Assistant
Court Administrators in view of R.A. No. 9282.
In said Memorandum, the Chief Attorney opined that: “The court may therefore grant the Assistant
Court Administrators the judicial rank of Associate Justice of the CTA,
definitely not that of the Presiding Justice of the CTA, which is the judicial
rank of the Court Administrator.
However, by granting the Assistant Court Administrators the rank of
Associate Justice of the CTA, they would be placed on the same judicial rank as
the Deputy Court Administrators who enjoy the rank of Associate Justice of the
Court of Appeals. Hence, there must be a
valid reason for placing them on an equal level in the hierarchy of positions
as the Deputy Court Administrators.” One
of the recommendations of the Chief Attorney was that the ACAs be granted the
rank, salary and privileges of an Associate Justice of the Court of
Appeals. This was not adopted by the
Court in the now assailed Resolution dated
[10]The relevant portions of the resolution provide:
2. Deputy Court Administrators
2.1. Assist the Court Administrator formulate and implement policies and standards for the internal operations of the four (4) OCA Offices and the lower courts in the regions assigned to them;
2.2. Assist the Court Administrator act on administrative disciplinary matters concerning judges and lower court employees stationed in the regions assigned to them;
2.3. Exercise direct control and supervision over the judicial supervisors assigned to them, including the conduct of their judicial audit;
2.4. Perform such other functions as may be delegated or assigned by the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court.
3.1. Assist the Court Administrator formulate and implement policies and standards for the internal operations of the four (4) OCA Offices and the lower courts;
3.2. Assist the Court Administrator oversee the operational activities of the Court Management Office (CMO), Legal Office (LEGO), Financial Management Office (FMO) and Office of Administrative Services (OAS-OCA);
3.3. Assist the Court Administrator act on administrative disciplinary matters concerning judges and lower court employees in specified stations;
3.4. Assist the Court Administrator in all liaison and coordination activities with the Executive and Legislative Departments; and
3.5. Perform such other functions as may be delegated or assigned by the Court Administrator or the Supreme Court.
[15]Creating
the Office of the Court Administrator in the Supreme Court and Providing Funds
Therefor and For Other Purposes,
[17]Development
Bank of the
[18]A Resolution Clarifying “Basic Monthly Salary” Under R.A. No. 9227, A.M. No. 03-12-04-SC, 24 February 2004.
[19]Re:
Request of Retired Justices of the Supreme Court for the Upgrading of their
Retirement Gratuities, A.M. No. 04-11-06-SC,
[21]Per
the resolution Clarifying and
Strengthening the Organizational Structure and Administrative Setup of the
Philippine Judicial Academy, A.M. No. 01-1-04-SC,