681 Phil. 638
PER CURIAM:
Records show that prior to her appointment to the Court of Appeals on August 2, 2002, Justice Guevara-Salonga held the following positions:
Service Exclusive Dates Position Station/ Place of Assignment FROM TO 03-27-1972 03-31-1974 Legal Researcher CFI-Laguna 04-01-1974 09-11-1975 Special Counsel Office of the Provincial Fiscal Laguna 09-12-1975 08-06-1980 Acting Assistant Provincial Fiscal 08-07-1980 02-02-1987 3rd Assistant Provincial Fiscal 02-03-1987 07-01-1989 RTC Judge RTC, Br. 32 San Pablo City 11-07-1991 08-21-2000 RTC Judge RTC, Br. 149 Makati City
On April 8, 2010[,] Republic Act No. 10071[,] otherwise known as “An Act Strengthening and Rationalizing the National Prosecution Service[,]” was signed into law. It took effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Philippine Star on May 13, 2010. Under Section 16 thereof, it provides the qualifications, ranks and appointments of prosecutors and other prosecution offices, as follows:“Sec. 16. Qualifications, Ranks and Appointments of Prosecutors and other Prosecution Officers. – x x x
Prosecutors with the rank of Prosecutor IV shall have the same qualifications for appointment, rank, category, prerogatives, salary grade and salaries, allowances, emoluments and other privileges, shall be subject to the same inhibitions, and disqualifications, and shall enjoy the same retirement and other benefits as those of a Judge of the Regional Trial Court.
Prosecutors with the rank of Prosecutor III shall have the same qualifications for appointment, rank, category, privileges, salary grade and salaries, allowances, emoluments and other privileges, shall be subject to the same inhibitions and disqualifications, and shall enjoy the same retirement and other benefits as those of a Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court.
Prosecutors with the rank of Prosecutor II shall have the same qualifications for appointment, rank, category, privileges, salary grade and salaries, allowances, emoluments and other privileges, shall be subject to the same inhibitions and disqualifications, and shall enjoy the same retirement and other benefits as those of a Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in cities.
Prosecutors with the rank of Prosecutor I shall have the same qualifications for appointment, rank, category, privileges, salary grade and salaries, allowances, emoluments and other privileges, shall be subject to the same inhibitions and disqualifications, and shall enjoy the same retirement and other benefits as those of a Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in municipalities.”
In relation to the above, Section 24 of the aforesaid Law reads:“Sec. 24. Retroactivity – The benefits mentioned in Section[s] 14 and 16 hereof shall be granted to those who retired prior to the effectivity of this Act.”(underscoring supplied)
Prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 10071, Assistant Provincial Fiscals do not enjoy the same qualifications for appointment, rank and privileges as those of a Judge. While the law provided for a retroactive application specifically for the benefits under Sections 14 and 16 as mentioned above, the same are granted only to those who retired prior to the effectivity of R.A. [No.] 10071, which does not apply to the case of Justice [Guevara]-Salonga.
In Re: Adjustment of Longevity Pay of Hon. Justice Emilio A. Gancayco, the Court it its Resolution dated July 25, 1991, said“The Court approved the request of Justice Emilio A. Gancayco for the adjustment of his longevity pay not only for purposes of his retirement but also for his entire judicial service by including as part thereof his period of service from August 9, 1963 to September 1, 1972 as Chief Prosecuting Attorney (Chief State Prosecutor) considering that under Republic Act No. 4140, the Chief State Prosecutor is given the same rank, qualification and salary of a Judge of the Court of First Instance.”
Further, the Court En Banc in its Resolution dated November 19, 1992 further resolved that:“Re: Adjustment of Longevity Pay of former Associate Justice Buenaventura S. dela Fuente. – This refers to the letter of former Associate Justice Buenaventura S. dela Fuente, dated September 27, 1992, requesting a recomputation of his longevity pay. It appears that former Justice dela Fuente had been the Chief Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, since June 22, 1963 until his promotion to the Court of Appeals in 1974, the qualifications for the appointment to which position as well as its rank and salary, pursuant to R.A. 2705, as amended by R.A. 4152, shall be the same as those prescribed for the first and next ranking assistant solicitors general. Accordingly, in line with the rulings of this Court in Re: Adjustment of Longevity Pay of Hon. Justice Emilio A. Gancayco, dated July 25, 1991 and Administrative Matter No. 85-8-8334-RTC. – Request of Judge Fernando Santiago for the inclusion of his services as Agrarian Counsel in the computation of his longevity pay, dated September 12, 1985, the Court Resolved to (a) APPROVE the aforesaid request of former Associate Justice Buenaventura S. dela Fuente[, and] (b) AUTHORIZE the recomputation of his longevity pay from June 22, 1963, when he assumed office and began discharging the functions of Chief Legal Counsel.” [emphases supplied]
CA Justice Guevara-Salonga has more than twenty-four (24) years of judicial service which qualify her for purposes of retirement. Her request to consider her service as Assistant Provincial [Fiscal] of Laguna as judicial service can be construed as intended to increase her longevity pay. In the aforecited cases of Justices Gancayco and dela Fuente, the adjustments of their longevity pay were allowed by the Court because their previous positions as Chief Prosecuting Attorney and Chief Legal Counsel, respectively, are given the same rank, qualification and salary of a Judge. No such legal basis exists in the case of Justice [Guevara]-Salonga.
In view of the foregoing, this Office respectfully recommends the denial of the request of Court of Appeals Justice Josefina [Guevara]-Salonga, to consider her services as Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Laguna as judicial service.