378 Phil. 1
Before the Court are the
following:
(a) Motion for Reconsideration dated September 3,
1999 filed by the Chief of the Reporter’s Division (Reporter II) of the Court
of Appeals, Atty. Gemma Leticia F. Tablate, with regard to the Resolution dated
August 25, 1999, which denied the petition to grant judicial rank and/or the
upgrading/reclassification of her position;
(b) Manifestation and Motion filed by
the CA Clerk of Court and Assistant Clerk of Court dated September 6, 1999
praying: (1) that the subject
Resolution be modified to clarify that the denial of the request to grant
judicial rank pertains only to the Court Reporter and that as regards the CA
Clerk of Court and the CA Assistant Clerk of Court, the denial is only with
respect to their request for the upgrading of their present judicial ranks; (2)
that a categorical statement be made that the CA Clerk of Court’s intention was
merely to be at par with the SC Assistant Clerk of Court and Division Clerks of
Court, and not to be in the same level with an Associate Justice of the CA or
the SC Clerk of Court; (3) that a categorical statement be made that
notwithstanding the same salary level of the Assistant Clerk of Court and the
Division Clerks of Court, hierarchical order of positions shall be maintained
and the circumstance that they have the same salary level is not to be
construed as said officers exercising the same level of authority within the
CA; and (4) that even if the salary grade be the same, the actual salary being
received by the CA Assistant Clerk of Court at any given time should be at a
salary step higher than that of the CA Division Clerks of Court; and
(c) Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration
dated September 7, 1999, filed by the CA Division Clerks of Court, Chiefs of
Division, and Assistant Chiefs of division, praying for a clarification and/or
reconsideration of the effectivity date of the subject resolution of this
Court.
The first motion was
referred to Atty. Adelaida Cabe-Baumann, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief
Administrative Officer, whereas the last two motions were referred to Atty.
Eden T. Candelaria, Officer-in-Charge, Office of Administrative Services. Both officials submitted memoranda addressed
to the Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., through Atty. Luzviminda D. Puno,
Clerk of Court, wherein their respective recommendations were presented.
We cannot grant the first
two motions.
First, in her motion for
reconsideration, CA Reporter II, Atty. Gemma Leticia F. Tablate, argues that
the Reporter’s Division of the Court of Appeals cannot be compared, much less
leveled with the support division of the different offices in this Court; and
that the position of the CA Reporter II and Executive Clerk of Court II (which
is the rank of a Division Clerk of Court of the CA) are of the same ranking and
salary grade level.
As aptly explained in
Atty. Baumann’s memorandum, this Court’s Resolution did not make a comparison,
much less did it level, the CA Reporter’s Division with the support divisions
of this Court. If any, the comparison
would only pertain to the higher salary being received by the Chief of the CA
Reporter’s Division, vis-à-vis that of the Division Chiefs in this Court
(the CA Reporter already enjoys Salary Level of SG 27 which is higher by two
grades than the upgraded level, SG 25, of this Court’s divisions chiefs). Further, it is to be noted that while there
are divisions in this Court headed by non-lawyers, it is undeniable that there
are divisions where the chiefs are required to be members of the Bar. And yet, none of them have been granted
judicial ranks by the Court.
As to the second
argument, it must be emphasized that the CA Reporter II and the Executive Clerk
of Court II (Divisions Clerk of Court) are NOT of the same rank. That they are of the same salary grade (SG
27) is not determinative of their equal rank. It is their place in the hierarchical order of positions within the
scheme of the organization that must be considered. As clearly shown in the 1998 organizational chart of the CA
(prepared by Atty. Tessie L. Gatmaitan, Clerk of Court, and approved by then CA
Acting Presiding Justice Arturo B. Buena), the 17 Division Clerks of Court are
placed at the same level as that of the Assistant Clerk of Court, while the
Reporters Division and rest of the CA divisions are placed below said Division
Clerks.
The second pending
incident is the manifestation and motion filed by the CA Clerk of Court and the
CA Assistant Clerk of Court. We do take
cognizance of the explanations contained therein regarding the absence of any
ill motivation on the part of the movants in their request for upgrading of
judicial ranking. Nevertheless, as
fully explained by Atty. Candelaria of the Office of Administrative Services,
the denial by this Court of the request for upgrading of salary levels of
and/or the request for the grant of judicial rank to the movants and the Court
Reporter logically signifies (a) the denial of the request only insofar as
upgrading of the present judicial ranking of the movants is concerned, and
certainly not a denial or revocation of their present rank, salary and
privileges; and (b) the denial of the Reporter’s request for judicial
ranking. Further, the Court need not
amplify that the CA Clerk of Court’s intentions are merely to be given an
equivalent rank as that of the SC Assistant Clerk of Court and SC Division
Clerks of Court, and not to be at par with an Associate Justice of the CA or
with the SC Clerk of Court. Since the
CA Clerk of Court is already enjoying the rank, salary, and privileges of an
RTC judge, her request for upgrading of her present rank, had it been granted,
would have necessarily elevated her present salary to SG 30 which is the salary
level of an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals. This effect may not be intended but it is
inevitably consequential. Significantly, by virtue of Republic Act 6758 (1989 Salary
Standardization Law), the salaries of identical positions in the three branches
of government were standardized and placed under the same salary levels in
accordance with a salary schedule from SG 1 to SG 33 (the latter being
exclusive to the President who is the highest official of the land). Because of the limited salary grades in said
schedule, some of the top positions were lumped under the same salary grades
notwithstanding the differences of levels of authority. Consequently, due to the reclassification of
the different positions in the judiciary, the salaries of this Court’s Clerk of
Court, Assistant Clerk of Court, and the three Divisions Clerks of Court, all
fall under the same salary grade (30) which is incidentally also the salary
grade of a CA Associate Justice, an Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan, as
well as the Presiding Judge of the Court of Tax Appeals. Nevertheless, we found no need to define or
clarify the levels of authority of the aforementioned SC officials since their
respective levels of authority are already defined and determined by the
character and nature of their duties and responsibilities. In this light, it is likewise unnecessary
for the Court to categorically say that the CA Assistant Clerk of Court has a
higher level of authority over the CA Division Clerks of Court notwithstanding
the fact that they have the same salary levels, since the CA Division Clerks of
Court, by the very nature of their duties and responsibilities, can never have
the same level of authority as the CA Assistant Clerk of Court.
As regards the request
that the actual salary of the Assistant Clerk of Court be at a salary step
higher than that of any of the Division Clerks of Court, we are, however,
afraid that we cannot grant the same in view of the absence of a clear-cut
policy on the matter of granting step increments to officials who are entitled
to longevity pay. While it appears that
step increment through merit may be given simultaneously with longevity pay, it
has never been implemented insofar as this Court and the lower courts are
concerned. Rather, what is being
implemented is the step increment through length of service. However, justices and judges are excluded
therefrom on the ground that longevity pay, which is given on the same premise
of length of service, is already being given to them. Based on Section 42 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980), a monthly longevity pay equivalent to 5% of the
monthly basic pay shall be paid to justice and judges of the courts for every
five years of continuous, efficient, and meritorious service rendered in the
judiciary. Hence, the basic salary of a
Justice of this Court, or of a judge in the lower courts, is fixed at Step 1 of
their respective salary grade (1-step increment) and as such, longevity pay is
also computed based on said salary step. Thus, should the prayer of the CA Assistant Clerk of Court be granted,
her basic salary would in effect be higher than the basic salary of a
Metropolitan Trial Court Judge. This
cannot be allowed since the CA Assistant Clerk of Court has the same rank,
salary and privileges as that of a Metropolitan Trial Court Judge.
Lastly, we pass upon the
motion for clarification and/or reconsideration filed by the Division Clerks of
Court, Chiefs of Division, and Assistant Chiefs of Division of the Court of
Appeals, praying that the effectivity date of this Court’s August 25, 1999
Resolution be retroactively fixed on January 1, 1999 considering that: (1) the
subject resolution has the effect of improving the economic lot and
professional status of said movants and thus may be deemed to have the nature
of a remedial curative decree; (2) there are no vested rights which would be
impaired by such course of action; and (3) as certified to by the Chief of the
Fiscal Management and Budget Division of the CA, there are adequate savings to
cover the retroactive implementation thereof.
The finding of Atty.
Candelaria that there is no legal obstacle nor fiscal constraint to deny the
instant motion is well-taken. While it
is well-settled that a judicial ruling construing a law cannot be given retroactive
effect if to do so will impair vested rights (Agpalo, Statutory
Construction, 1986 ed., p. 48), we agree with the movants that there are no
vested rights that will be unsettled nor are there legal effects of prior
transactions that will be disturbed if we retroactively apply the August 25,
1999 Resolution. Hence, we hereby fix the effectivity date of the subject
resolution on January 1, 1999.
WHEREFORE, the motion for clarification and/or
reconsideration dated September 7, 1999, filed by the Division Clerks of Court,
Chiefs of Division, and Assistant Chiefs of Division of the Court of Appeals,
is hereby GRANTED and accordingly, the effectivity date of our August 25, 1999
Resolution is hereby set on January 1, 1999. The manifestation with motion
dated September 6, 1999 filed by the CA Clerk of Court and the CA Assistant
Clerk of Court is hereby NOTED WITHOUT ACTION. The motion for reconsideration dated September 3, 1999 filed by CA Court
Reporter is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.