547 Phil. 206
AZCUNA, J.:
x x xOn February 2, 1995, respondent City Government of Cebu filed a petition for certiorari with this Court assailing the legality of the following:
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: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:
- 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;
- The 2 LO IV are actually chiefs of divisions, each supported by 4 LO III; and
- The CLO performs court litigation activities for civil/administrative cases and legal counseling tasks.
From ToNo. of Pos. Position Title Salary Grade Position Title Salary Grade 1City Government 25City Government 26Department Head I Department Head II 1City Government 23City Government 24Assistant Department Head I Assistant Department Head II 2Legal Officer IV 22Attorney 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
(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;In a Resolution dated June 20, 1995, this Court en banc resolved to refer the case to the CA pursuant to Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95.
(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 November 19, 1993.
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.As regards Ordinance No. 1468, the CA ruled that it does not violate Regional Memorandum Circular No. 92-1, thus:
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: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:
x x x
(c) Step Increments - Effective January 1, 1990 step increments shall be granted based on merit and/or length of service in accordance with rules and regulations that will be promulgated jointly by the DBM and the Civil Service Commission.""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]
. . . 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]
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Memorandum Circular No. 55 dated November 19, 1993, Regional Memorandum Circular No. 92-1 dated March 23, 1992 and letter dated November 19, 1993 disapproving Special Ordinance No. 1450 are declared VALID and EFFECTIVE.In a motion dated July 2, 1996, petitioner DBM sought clarification of the Decision of the CA pertaining to Cebu City Ordinance No. 1468 in view of the seeming conflict between the declaration of validity of the ordinance and Bulletin No. 10 dated March 7, 1991 of the Joint Commission on Local Government Personnel Administration (JCLGPA). Petitioner prayed that Ordinance No. 1468, insofar as it upgrades the position of Cebu City Government Assistant Department Heads from Salary Grade 24 to Salary Grade 25 and Cebu City Government Department Heads from Salary Grade 26 to Salary Grade 27, be declared void for being contrary to Bulletin No. 10 dated March 7, 1991.
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]
Petitioners thereafter filed this petition for review on certiorari alleging, thus:x x x
On March 15, 1996, our questioned decision became final and executory as per entry of Judgment dated June 5, 1996 (p. 199, Rollo). The motions for leave to file motion for clarification and to admit the said motion for clarification were filed on July 5, 1996.
The motion for clarification of the decision dated February 22, 1996 is in reality a motion for reconsideration which under our rules must be filed within fifteen (15) days from receipt by the respondents of the decision. This respondents failed to do.
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]
THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT DENIED, IN ITS RESOLUTION DATED NOVEMBER 20, 1996, PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND THUS REFUSED TO RESOLVE AN AMBIGUITY IN ITS DECISION DATED FEBRUARY 22, 1996.[10]Petitioners argue that the motion for clarification filed with the CA does not pray for reconsideration of the Decision dated February 22, 1996, since it is favorable to them. It merely sought to clarify an ambiguity in the
The Court notes that Ordinance No. 1468, approved on August 9, 1993, merely provided for appropriations "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 July 1, 1989." It is clearly stated therein that the salary adjustments of department heads and assistant department heads will conform with the correct position titles under Joint Commission Circular Nos. 37 and 39 dated September 30, 1989 and October 2, 1990, respectively. Bulletin No. 10, dated March 7, 1991, provided the guidelines for the proper implementation of Joint Commission Circular No. 39. The Bulletin was 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 September 30, 1989 as embodied in Joint Commission Circular No. 39 dated October 2, 1990." Hence, in this case, Joint Commission Circular Nos. 37 and 39 should be read together with Bulletin No. 10 in determining the correct salary grades of the City Government Department Heads and Assistant Department Heads of Cebu City, which is classified as a highly urbanized city.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 July 1, 1989. Appropriations for the accrued true and correct salary differentials of department heads and assistant department heads shall be provided for in the next supplemental budget of the general fund CY 1993.
Section 2. - This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its approval.[11]