FIRST DIVISION
DEPARTMENT
OF BUDGET AND G.R. No. 127301
MANAGEMENT
AND HONORABLE
SECRETARY
ENRIQUEZ,
JR.,
Petitioners, PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
AZCUNA,
and
- versus - GARCIA, JJ.
Promulgated:
THE
CITY GOVERNMENT OF CEBU, March
14, 2007
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
This is a petition for review on
certiorari of the Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated
The
facts are:
P1,000 per month.
On
On
According to petitioners, Ordinance No.
1468 would cover salary differentials and adjustments of the salaries of the
city officials and employees in the full implementation of a seventh-step
increase (from second step to eighth
step) of their salary schedule for the period of 1993, contrary to the
provisions of DBM Regional Memorandum Circular No. 92-1.
Regional Memorandum Circular No.
92-1,[1] dated
On May 19, 1993, respondent passed and
approved Ordinance No. 1450, which abolished the positions of Legal Officers III
and IV and created ten Assistant City Attorneys and accordingly upgraded
the salaries of said legal officers from
P6,798 and P8,250, respectively, to P10,130.20 per month
effective June 1, 1993.
In a letter dated
In a letter-reply[4]
dated
x x x
An
evaluation of the justification/documents submitted and the present
organizational structure of the City based on existing classification
standards/criteria under RA 6758 reveals the following:
1. The City Attorney, classified as City Government Department Head I is assisted by an Assistant City Attorney, classified as City Government Assistant Department Head I;
2. The 2 LO IV are actually chiefs of divisions, each supported by 4 LO III; and
3.
The CLO performs court litigation
activities for civil/administrative cases and legal counseling tasks.
In view of the foregoing and based on the
changes in the classification of the positions of local executives for a highly
urbanized City like Cebu under JCLGPA Bulletin No. 10 dated March 7, 1991, the
positions under the CLU are reclassified as follows:
F r o m
T o
------------------------------ -------------------------
No. of Salary Salary
Pos.
Position Title Grade Position Title Grade
-------- ----------------- --------- ---------------- --------
1
City Government 25 City Government 26
Department Head I Department Head II
1
City Government 23 City Government 24
Assistant Depart- Assistant Depart-
ment Head I ment Head II
2
Legal Officer IV 22 Attorney IV 23
x x
x
The
proposed salary grade assignment at SG-24 for the two (2) Legal Officer IV
positions is not feasible since if allowed [it] will result in an overlap with
that of the City Government Assistant Department Head, their immediate
supervisor, which is SG-24. x x x
On
(1)
DBM
Local Budget Circular No. 55 dated March 15, 1994 which set the guidelines on
compensation and position classification in the Local Government Units,
particularly Cebu City in this instance, vis-a-vis the granting of additional allowances and
other benefits to national government officials and employees assigned within
its jurisdiction in the form of honorarium at rates not exceeding P1,000;
(2)
DBM Regional Memorandum Circular No. 92-1 dated
March 23, 1992 enjoining respondent, among other local government units, from
granting step increments/salary
increases not in accordance with CSC-DBM Joint Circular No. 1 and requiring the
same to adjust the salary increase and the incumbents to return/refund accordingly
any excess received by them; and
(3)
the letter-reply dated
In a Resolution dated
In its Decision promulgated on
As to the issue on the validity of Local
Budget Circular No. 55 dated P1,000
additional allowances to judges and prosecutors. Petitioners explained that while Local Budget Circular No.
55 indeed prohibits the grant of additional allowances in an amount more than P1,000,
the Circular, however, does not apply to
the appropriation ordinance of respondent because it was passed
before the effectivity of the Circular.
Next,
Regional Memorandum Circular No. 92-1, which respondent alleged to have been issued in excess of the
authority granted to DBM and alleged to militate against the autonomy of
the local government units to fix the compensation of their employees, was held
to be valid by the CA.
The CA ruled:
Republic
Act No. 6758, otherwise known as Compensation and Position Classification Act
of 1989 expressly directed respondent DBM to establish and administer a Unified
Compensation and Position Classification System that shall be applied to all
government entities.
The
law likewise authorized respondent DBM to promulgate rules and regulations
relative to grant of step increments. Section 13 of R.A. 6758 reads:
“Sec.
13. Pay Adjustments.—Paragraphs
(b) and (c), Section 15 of Presidential Decree No. 985 are here amended to read
as follows:
x
x x
(c)
Step Increments – Effective
Pursuant
to Section 13 of R.A. No. 6758, respondent DBM issued [Regional] Memorandum
Circular No. 92-1 which disallowed any grants by any local government units of
step increments not based on merit and length of service. The circular reads:
“2.0. In line with this, the Secretary of Budget
and Management issued a memorandum directing that the opinion/views of the
Executive Director of the Bureau of Local Government Supervision, JCLGPA,
should be set aside/inasmuch as granting full implementation (one-shot affair)
of the 8th step of the Salary Schedule of Joint Commission Circular
No. 36 is not allowed under the Salary Standardization Law. Furthermore, such step increment/step
increase is not in accordance with the provisions of CSC-DBM Joint Circular #1,
which allows the grant of merit and longevity pay.”
x
x x
It
is very evident from R.A. No. 6758 that grants of step increments must be based
on merit and length of service.
[Regional]
Memorandum Circular No. 92-1 issued by respondent DBM disallowed only grants of
step increments not based on merit and length of service. [Regional] Memorandum Circular No. 92-1 is
well within the mandate of R.A. No. 6758.
The acts of respondent DBM is well within the purview of R.A. No.
6758. Respondent DBM did not exceed its
authority.
Neither
can it be said that the issuance of [Regional] Memorandum Circular No. 92-1
undermines the authority of the petitioner’s power of local autonomy.
Indeed
under R.A. No. 7160, local government units like petitioner are with powers to
determine the compensation of their local officials and employees. However, the powers granted under R.A. No.
7160 is not without any limitations.
R.A. No. 7160 mandates that any increases in compensation are subject to
certain conditions one of which is that it may be based upon the pertinent
provision of R. A. No. 6758. Section
81 of R.A. No. 7160 reads:
“Sec.
81. Compensation of Local Officials and
Employees. The compensation of
local officials and personnel shall be determined by the sanggunian
concerned: Provided, That the increase
in compensation of elective local officials shall take effect only after the
terms of office of those approving such increase shall have expired: Provided, further, That the increase in
compensation of the appointive officials and employees shall take effect as provided
in the ordinance shall not exceed the limitations on budgetary allocations for
personal services provided under Title Five, Book II of this code: Provided, finally, That such compensation
may be based upon the pertinent provisions of Republic Act Numbered Sixty-seven
fifty-eight, (R.A. No. 6758), otherwise
known as the ‘Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989’.”
As
earlier pointed out, R.A. No. 6758 provides that step increments must be based
on merit and length of service, as required by respondents in their [Regional] Memorandum Circular No. 92-1.
On
these premises therefore, We conclude that [Regional] Memorandum Circular No.
92-1 is a valid issuance.[5]
As regards Ordinance No. 1468, the CA
ruled that it does not violate Regional Memorandum Circular No. 92-1, thus:
. .
. Ordinance No. 1468 increased the salary of concerned personnel not through a
step increment but through changes in position titles and in their
corresponding salary grades. The position titles of Department Heads and
Assistant Department Heads were changed. Correspondingly, a change in salary
grades, in this case, from a lower grade to a higher grade. Correspondingly, an increase in salary. This
is not step-increment. The salary
increased because the position titles and salary grades were changed. Ordinance No. 1468 is not a grant of
step-increment. Therefore, its passage
cannot be in violation of Memorandum
Circular No. 92-1.[6]
Further, the CA declared as void
Ordinance No. 1450, which abolished the existing positions of Legal Officers
III and IV and mandated the creation of Assistant City Attorney with a monthly
salary of P10,135. The CA reasoned that allowing the ordinance would
result in the overlap of the salary grade of both the City Government Assistant
Department Head (Salary Grade 24) and the proposed Assistant City Attorneys
(Salary Grade 24) in violation of the State policy to provide equal pay only
for substantially equal work under R.A. No. 6758.[7]
The
dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
foregoing considered, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of
merit. Memorandum Circular No. 55 dated
Further, Ordinance No. 1468 and the appropriation ordinance
increasing the allowances of judges and prosecutors issued by the petitioner
are likewise declared valid.
Petitioner’s
Ordinance No. 1450 is hereby declared VOID for being violative of R.A. No.
6758.
SO
ORDERED.[8]
In a motion dated
In a Resolution dated
x x x
On
The
motion for clarification of the decision dated
In
the recent case of First Integrated Bonding and Insurance Co. vs. Hernando, 199
SCRA 196, it was held:
“Where
decision has already become final and executory, it cannot longer be corrected
or amended.”
The
only exception is for the correction of clerical error or mistake (Francisco v.
Bautista, 192 SCRA 388). In this case
what is sought to be corrected or amended is the text of the dispositive
portion of the decision which can no longer be done under our rules and
established jurisprudence.
ACCORDINGLY,
for lack of merit, the motion for clarification filed by the respondents is
denied.
SO ORDERED.[9]
Petitioners thereafter filed this petition
for review on certiorari alleging, thus:
THE
COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT DENIED, IN ITS
RESOLUTION DATED
Petitioners argue that the motion for
clarification filed with the CA does not pray for reconsideration of the
Decision dated
decision and focus on the implication
of the CA’s declaration of validity of Cebu City Ordinance No. 1468, which
conflicts with Bulletin No. 10 dated March 7, 1991, the validity of which was
recognized by the CA.
Petitioners stated that pursuant to Ordinance
No. 1468, respondent increased the salary grades of Department Heads from Salary
Grade 26 to Salary Grade 27 and the salary grades of Assistant Department Heads
from Salary Grade 24 to Salary Grade 25 based on JCLGPA Circulars Nos. 37 and
39. Such upgrading was, however,
disallowed in budget review by the DBM-Regional Office No. VII and consequently
disallowed in audit by the Commission on Audit.
Petitioners contend that in declaring
Ordinance No. 1468 as valid, the CA failed to consider that pursuant to
Bulletin No. 10 dated
Thus, on the basis of the
classification of Cebu City as a highly urbanized city, petitioners seek from
the Court a ruling that the salary grades of Cebu City Government Department
Head and that of Assistant Department Head are Salary Grades 26 and 24,
respectively, to reconcile the conflict between Bulletin No. 10 dated March 7,
1991 and the declaration of validity of Ordinance No. 1468 to avoid
confusion.
The pertinent Ordinance provides,
thus:
ORDINANCE NO. 1468
AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING SECTION 4 OF ORDINANCE NO. 1461 ENTITLED: AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING
THE AMOUNT OF FIFTY EIGHT MILLION ONE HUNDRED FIFTY SEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN
HUNDRED FIFTY SIX & 03/100 CTVS (P58,157,756.03) TO COVER URGENT AND
NECESSARY EXPENSES OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF CEBU UNDER THE GENERAL FUND AND
ITS SUB-ACCOUNTS ON ECONOMIC ENTERPRISES FOR CY 1993.
Section
1. – Section 4 of Ordinance No. 1461 entitled:
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING THE AMOUNT OF FIFTY EIGHT MILLION ONE HUNDRED
FIFTY SEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY SIX & 03/100 CTVS (P58,157,756.03)
TO COVER URGENT AND NECESSARY EXPENSES OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF CEBU UNDER THE
GENERAL FUND AND ITS SUB-ACCOUNTS ON ECONOMIC ENTERPRISES FOR CY 1993 is hereby
amended in order to read as follows:
Section
4. – Furthermore, appropriations are herein provided for the salary adjustments
of department heads and assistant department heads to conform with the correct
position titles under Joint Commission Circular Nos. 37 and 39 which took
effect on
Section
2. – This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its approval.[11]
The Court notes that Ordinance No. 1468,
approved on
Considering that Ordinance No. 1468 is
only an appropriation ordinance, petitioners erred in asserting that the ordinance
upgrades the position of Cebu City Government
Department Head from Salary Grade 26 to Salary Grade 27, and the
position of Cebu City Government Assistant
Department Head from Salary Grade 24 to Salary Grade 25. In this case, the bases for the correct salary
grades of all positions in the local government unit are provided for by Joint
Commission Circular No. 37[12] dated
Clarification after final judgment is
allowed when what is involved is a clerical error or not an erroneous judgment or
dispositive portion of the Decision.[15]
In this case, the clarification
sought by petitioners did not involve an erroneous judgment. As respondent in its original petition merely
questioned the validity of DBM Regional
Memorandum Circular No. 92-1 in relation to Cebu City Ordinance No. 1468, the CA
correctly ruled that Ordinance No. 1468
was valid because it did not involve the grant of step increments and therefore
could not be violative of Regional Memorandum Circular No. 92-1, which enjoined
respondent from granting step increments/salary increases not in accordance
with CSC-DBM Joint Circular No. 1 mandating that the grant of step increments
must be based on merit and/or length of
service.
To avoid confusion arising from the
declaration of validity of Ordinance No. 1468, clarification is in order.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari
is GRANTED. It is hereby
clarified that in determining the correct salary grades of the City Government
Department Heads and City Government Assistant Department Heads based on Joint
Commission Circular No. 37 as embodied in Joint Commission Circular No. 39
dated October 2, 1990, respondent must also read the guidelines in Bulletin No.
10, dated March 7, 1991, to arrive at the correct salary grades for said
positions.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chairperson
Chief Justice
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Records, p. 23.
[2] Rules and Regulations on the Standardization of Compensation and Position Classification in the Local Governments.
[3] The Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
[4] Records, p. 76.
[5] Rollo, pp. 28-30.
[6]
[7] R.A. No. 6758, Sec. 2. Statement of Policy, -- it is hereby declared the policy of the state to provide equal pay for substantially equal work and to base differences in pay upon substantive differences in duties and responsibilities, and qualification requirements of the positions. x x x
[8] Rollo, pp. 33-34.
[9]
[10]
[11] Records, pp. 72-73.
[12] Circular No. 37,
x x x
SUBJECT: INDEX OF OCCUPATIONAL SERVICES, POSTITION TITLES AND SALARY
GRADES
1. R.A. No. 6758 entitled “An Act Prescribing a Revised Compensation and Position Classification System in the Government and for Other Purposes” specifically Section 6 thereof provides that all positions in the government including those in the local government units shall be allocated to their proper position titles and salary grades in accordance with the Index of Occupational Services, Position Titles and Salary Grades prepared by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).
2. Accordingly, the attached Index of Occupational Services, Position Titles and Salary Grades prepared by the DBM is hereby issued.
3. Henceforth, all positions in the local government unit shall be allocated to their proper position titles and salary grades in accordance with said Index.
4.
This Circular shall take effect
[13] SUBJECT: CHANGES IN THE INDEX OF OCCUPATIONAL SERVICES, POSITION TITLES AND SALARY GRADES ISSUED UNDER CIRCULAR NO. 37.
[14] SUBJECT: GUIDELINES FOR THE PROPER IMPLEMENTATION OF
JOINT COMMISSION CIRCULAR NO. 39 DATED
This Bulletin is
being issued primarily to respond to the numerous queries on the interpretation
of certain changes in the Index of Occupational Services, Position Titles and
Salary Grades issued under Joint Commission Circular No. 37 dated
[15] Ramos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 42108, May 10, 1995, 244 SCRA 72, 77-78; Castelo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96372, May 22, 1995, 244 SCRA 180, 186.