EN
BANC
|
RE: COMPUTATION OF LONGEVITY PAY UPON COMPULSORY RETIREMENT. |
|
A. M. No. 07-8-27-SC Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO
MORALES, AZCUNA,
TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA,
and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: October
10, 2007 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before Us are two communications,
1) a letter,[1] dated 23
August 2007, of Hon. Cancio C. Garcia, Associate
Justice of this Court; and 2) a Memorandum,[2]
dated 29 August 2007 of Corazon G. Ferrer-Flores,
Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief of Office, Fiscal Management and Budget Office
(FMBO), also of this Court. Both communications, addressed to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, embody a request
for clarification whether or not to tack earned leave credits in the
computation of Longevity Pay upon compulsory retirement of Justices and Judges.
Justice Garcia’s letter reads in part –
I am ending my more than 45 years of government service by
midnight of 19 October 2007, 30 years, 10 months and 26 days of which were with
the judiciary x x x.
I am presently receiving monthly longevity pay computed at
thirty percent (30%) of my basic salary, conformably with Sec. 42 of BP 129
which pertinently provides:
Sec. 42. Longevity Pay. – A monthly longevity pay equivalent to
5% of the monthly basic pay shall be paid to the Justices and Judges of the
courts herein created for each five years continuous, efficient and meritorious
service rendered in the judiciary x x x.
As of 19 October 2007, my earned leave credits would have reached a total of 1,499.5 days
which would be equivalent to 5 years, 8 months, and 3.5 days x x x.
x x x x
Under Administrative
Circular No. 58-2003, my retirement pay, and God-willing, my monthly
pension five (5) years later, shall have to be computed by tacking my leave
credits of 5 years, 8 months and 3.5 days to my total years of service in the
judiciary (30 years, 10 months and 26 days), making a total of 36 years, 6
months 29.5 days or 36.58 years, thus, increasing my monthly longevity pay to
thirty six percent (36%). It will be noted that the Circular makes no distinction
as to what branch of the government the leave credits were earned for purposes
of increasing the longevity pay of Justices and Judges who reach the age of
compulsory retirement.[3]
In connection thereto, the FMBO
Chief, in her Memorandum, relates that –
Upon the request of Justice Gutierrez and Justice Garcia,
we have computed their estimated retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 910
(RA 910), as amended. The computation of their retirement benefits did not
consider the tacking of earned leave credits in the computation of longevity
pay provided under Administrative Circular No. 58-2003. [Citation omitted.]
Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao, who retired from the Court of Appeals on June 19,
2007, likewise requests, in his letter dated August 6, 2007 [citation omitted],
that his earned leave credits be tacked for the purpose of computing his
longevity pay in accordance with Administrative Circular No. 58-2003.[4]
To recall, a similar situation
arose sometime in 2003, prior to the compulsory retirement of then Senior Associate
Justice Josue N. Bellosillo,
also of this Court. In a letter-request[5]
dated 25 September 2003, docketed as A.M. No. 03-9-20-SC entitled “Re: Request of Senior Associate Justice Josue N. Bellosillo for
Computation of His Longevity Pay upon Compulsory Retirement,” then Senior
Associate Justice Bellosillo asked this Court that
his earned leave credits be tacked to his judicial service to increase his
longevity pay. In a Resolution[6]
dated
WHEREAS, The Court has studied proposals to allow the
tacking of earned leave credits to the length of judicial service for
computation of the longevity pay.
WHEREAS, Section 42 of Batas Pambansa
(BP) 129 provides for a monthly longevity pay equivalent to 5% of the monthly
basic pay for every five years of service rendered in the judiciary;
WHEREAS, it is true that vacation and sick leave credits
earned during the period of employment are, by their nature and purpose,
generally enjoyed during employment; however, the law does not preclude the
accumulation of these leave credits, not to be paid while one is working, but
to be reserved for senior age;
WHEREAS, retirement laws are liberally interpreted in favor
of the retiree because their intention is to provide for his sustenance, and
hopefully even comfort, when he no longer has the stamina to continue earning
his livelihood and the liberal approach aims to achieve the humanitarian
purposes of the law in order that the efficiency, security, and well-being of
government personnel may be enhanced;
WHEREAS, laws pertaining to retiring government personnel
should be liberally construed to benefit retiring personnel, following an
interpretation that rightly expresses the nation’s gratitude towards the women
and men who have tirelessly and faithfully served the government;
WHEREAS, earned leave credits, computed in accordance with
Section 40, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules on Leave, should accordingly be
allowed to increase the longevity pay of Justices and Judges reaching the age
of compulsory retirement;
NOW, THEREFORE, the COURT RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES,
that earned leave credits shall be allowed to be tacked to the length of
judicial service for the purpose of increasing the longevity pay of Justices
and Judges who reach the age of compulsory retirement. The computation should
also include the additional percentage of longevity pay that corresponds to any
fraction of a five-year period in the total number of years of continuous,
efficient and meritorious service rendered, considering that the retiree would
no longer be able to complete the period because of his compulsory retirement.[7]
With the foregoing issuances, it is
manifestly directed that earned leave credits ought to be included in the
computation of the longevity pay of Justices and Judges upon their compulsory
retirement.
At present, however, as the FMBO
explains, the non-inclusion of earned leave credits in the computation of the
longevity pay of Supreme Court Associate Justices Gutierrez and Garcia, as well
as Retired Court of Appeals Associate Justice Dacudao,
upon their compulsory retirement, even in the face of A.C. No. 58-2003, and the
edicts by this Court in A.M. No. 03-9-20-SC, i.e., 1) Resolution[8]
dated 7 October 2003, granting the request of Senior Justice Bellosillo to tack his earned leave credits; and 2)
Resolution[9]
dated 11 November 2003, approving and adopting A.C. No. 58-2003, is the
consequence of its apprehension as to the non-sustainability of charging
payments of longevity pays, computed in accordance with A.C. No. 58-2003, to
the savings of the court concerned. According to the FMBO, the longevity pay of
retired Senior Associate Justice Bellosillo was
charged to the savings of this Court in view of the prior refusal of the
Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to pay the amount due him, computed
in accordance with the subject circular, notwithstanding this Court’s
Resolution[10] dated
26 July 2005 in A.M. No. 03-9-20-SC, enjoining said department to disburse
payment thereof, to wit:
SC Administrative Circular No. 58-2003 allows earned leave
credits of Justices and Judges who reach the age of compulsory retirement to be
tacked to the length of judicial service for the purpose of increasing their
longevity pay, on the basis of a liberal interpretation of retirement
legislation in line with previous jurisprudence for the benefit of deserving
retirees. The observations of the Secretary of Budget and Management are,
therefore, noted but she is enjoined to pay the amount due to retired Senior
Associate Justice Josue N. Bellosillo
in the implementation of said Circular.
WHEREFORE, the payment of longevity pay in accordance with
Administrative Circular No. 58-2003 to retired Justice Josue
N. Bellosillo is hereby DIRECTED. (Emphasis
supplied.)[11]
The negative response to the
implementation of A.C. No. 58-2003 by the DBM, was
conveyed to this Court by way of a letter[12]
dated
First, Section 42 clearly states as
a condition to grant longevity pay, the rendition of five years continuous
service. It expressly grants longevity pay for “each” five years of continuous
service. Thus, longevity pay may only be granted if the condition has been
complied with, i.e., at the end of every five-year period. It cannot be granted
before expiration of the five-year period.
Second, the use of the words ”continuous, efficient and meritorious service”
clearly refers to the actual service. Therefore, earned leave credits, not
being actual service, cannot be considered as part of “continuous, efficient
and meritorious service.” Tacking-in of leave credits will therefore run
counter to the expressed intent of the law.
Third, we are fully aware that laws
pertaining to retiring government personnel should be liberally construed in
favor of the retiring personnel, if the law is vague and capable of more than
one construction. Section 42 of B.P. 129, however, is quite clear on its
intent.
Besides, retirees are already given
due recognition and award for their services to the nation under Section 42 of
B.P. 129 which entitles retirees to longevity pay. Furthermore, retirees who
did not avail of their leave privileges are allowed to accumulate and commute unused
leave credits as terminal leave upon their retirement. The intent of the law,
which is to award retirees for their untiring service to the nation, continues
to be served.
For these reasons, we believe we
have complied with the provisions of R.A. 910 (sic) as amended in the
computation and release of funds for the retirement and terminal leave benefits
of Justice Bellosillo.
Hence,
the twin prayers for clarification by Supreme Court Associate Justice Garcia
and FMBO Chief Corazon G. Ferrer-Flores.
The seeming necessity for
clarification founded on the preceding factual milieu is declared, thus, by
Supreme Court Associate Justice Garcia:
The undersigned seeks a clarificatory
resolution from the Court on this matter for the future guidance of all
persons, agencies, and offices concerned.[13]
Likewise, the FMBO implores, to
wit:
IN VIEW THEREOF, may we respectfully request clarification
if the tacking of leave credits to the length of judicial service for the
purpose of computing the longevity pay as prescribed in Administrative Circular
No. 58-2003 should be made applicable to all justices and judges retiring under
RA 910, as amended. In the affirmative, may we respectfully recommend that the
DBM be directed to comply with the provisions of Administrative Circular No.
58-2003. In case of non-compliance by the DBM, may we
further respectfully recommend that the payment of the retirement benefit
corresponding to the longevity pay based on tacked leave credits to be sourced
from savings of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals and the lower
courts, as the case may be, be made subject to availability of savings.[14]
In fine, illumination is allegedly
needed respecting the issue of whether or not longevity pay of Justices and Judges
upon compulsory retirement shall be computed in accordance with A.C. No.
58-2003, which provides for the tacking of earned leave credits.
The foregoing letter of the DBM
notwithstanding, this Court is of the view that the uncertainty is more
ostensible than real. There is nothing that needs to be clarified as A.C. No.
58-2003, as well as all the other Resolutions issued by this Court in A.M. No.
03-9-20-SC, explicitly dictates the tacking or inclusion of earned leave
credits to the computation of longevity pay of Justices and Judges upon their
compulsory retirement. This Court agrees with Associate Justice Garcia that
A.C. No. 58-2003, “just like all Court issuances which are made pursuant to its
constitutional power to interpret laws, has the force and effect of law,” and
that, “all concerned government agencies like the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) and our very own Budget Division, included, are thereby
duty-bound to comply x x x”[15]
therewith exclusive of any written appeal, demand or request of its prospective
beneficiaries.
Anent the recommendations of the
FMBO, to quote again:
In the affirmative, may we
respectfully recommend that the DBM be directed to comply
with the provisions of Administrative Circular No. 58-2003.
In case of non-compliance by the DBM, may we further respectfully recommend
that the payment of the retirement benefit corresponding to the longevity pay
based on tacked leave credits to be sourced from savings of
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan,
the Court of Tax Appeals and the lower courts, as the case may be, be made
subject to availability of savings.[16]
(Emphasis supplied.)
This
Court approves the recommendation insofar as the FMBO proposes that the DBM be
directed to comply with the provisions of A.C. No. 58-2003.
The suggestion, however, that, in
the event the DBM refuses to comply with a prospective directive from this
Court, payment of subject retirement benefit be made subject to availability of
the savings of the court concerned, is without merit. To conform thereto would
make payment of such retirement benefit conditional, defeating its compulsory
nature, not to mention the very wisdom behind the issuance of A.C. No. 58-2003,
which is to ensure the comfort and security of retired Justices and Judges who
have tirelessly and faithfully served the government. In other words,
compliance by the DBM with the directive contained herein is the only option
available to it, bearing in mind that this Court, after due and painstaking
consideration, has sufficiently made clear its position on the matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as it is hereby Resolved, that,
in accordance with Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 58-2003 and
Supreme Court En Banc Resolutions
dated 7 October 2003, 11 November 2003, and 26 July 2005, in Administrative
Matter No. 03-9-20-SC, henceforth,
the Fiscal Management and Budget Office of this Office is DIRECTED to include in the computation of the longevity pay of Justices
and Judges, upon compulsory retirement, their total earned leave credits. The
Department of Budget and Management is, likewise, heretofore ENJOINED to
release such payment to Justices and Judges, upon compulsory retirement,
representing their longevity pay computed on the basis of Administrative
Circular No. 58-2003.
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
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
|
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate
Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RUBEN T. REYES Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|