6. Re: Letter of Court of Appeals Justice Vicente S. E. Veloso, 1.
1. CA Justice Gacutan filed a MR of the Court’s ruling which denied her
Resolution on MR (Vi)
July 26, 2016|Leonardo De Castro, J. | Separation of Powers (Application)
Re: Letter of Court of Appeals Justice Vicente S. E. Veloso,
Resolution on MR (also Gacutan and Salazar-Fernando asking for the
same thing – these are consolidated cases)
SUMMARY: This case involves the letter-requests of CA Associate
Justice Remedios Salazar-Fernando, CA Associate Justice Angelita A.
Gacutan and CA Associate Justice Vicente Veloso for their claim of
longevity pay for services rendered within and outside the Judiciary as
part of their compensation package. They anchored their claim under
Section 42 of B.P. Blg. 129 and the Court's ruling in In Re: Request of
Justice Bernardo P. Pardo. CA Justice Gacutan filed a MR of the Court’s
ruling which denied her request to include her services as Commissioner
of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in the computation
of her longevity pay.
Issue: Whether they are entitled to longevity pay for service rendered
outside the judiciary – YES
The Court granted her MR. CA Justice Gacutan's services as NLRC
Commissioner should be included in the computation of her longevity pay,
but only from August 26, 2006, when Republic Act No. 9347, which
amended Section 216 of the Labor Code, took effect. Longevity pay is
part of salary as shown in Sec. 42 of BP 129. There are also laws which
give certain positions in the executive branch the same salary and rank as
those in the judiciary such as RA 9347 which says that the Chairman and
Members of Commissions shall have the same salary and rank as
Associate Justices of the CA. Therefore, the time services as NLRC
Commissioner should also be counted (since same salary and rank) in
computing the longevity pay but only after the amendment by RA 9347.
The executive contemporaneous construction of longevity pay is
consistent with the law, as interpreted by the SC. The SC cannot
question the wisdom of the laws passed by Congress.
DOCTRINE: Service in the executive branch does not make one a
member of the judiciary but in this case, the service in the executive
branch in a position that had equal rank given by law was included in
computing the longevity pay along with the time served in the
judiciary.
FACTS:
request to include her services as Commissioner of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) in the computation of her longevity
pay.
2. CA Justice Gacutan submitted that granting her request would be a
reward for her past continuous services as a lifelong public servant who
eventually retired from the judiciary, and that "by granting her request,
there is no judicial legislation — there is only the recognition of justice
and equity to which we in the judiciary stand for.”
ISSUE:
1. Whether they are entitled to longevity pay for service rendered
outside the judiciary – YES
2. Whether longevity pay is part of salary – YES
3. Whether certain executive officials with the rank and salary of
a member of the judiciary enjoys longevity pay – YES
RATIO:
1st Issue
1. The Court granted her MR. CA Justice Gacutan's services as
NLRC Commissioner should be included in the computation of her
longevity pay, but only from August 26, 2006, when Republic Act
No. 9347, which amended Section 216 of the Labor Code, took
effect.
2. This is expressly stated in the law. Sec. 42 of B.P. Blg. 129 or the
Judiciary Reorganization Act states that:
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 of
continuous, efficient, and meritorious service rendered in the
judiciary: Provided, That in no case shall the total salary of each
Justice or Judge concerned, after this longevity pay is added,
exceed the salary of the Justice or Judge next in rank.
3. As a rule, therefore, the grant of longevity pay under Section 42 of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 is premised on the rendition of
continuous, efficient, and meritorious service in the Judiciary. That
is the express language of the law.
4. There are laws which expressly require the qualifications for
appointment, confer the rank, and grant the salaries, privileges, and
benefits of members of the Judiciary on other public officers in the
Executive Department, such as the SolGen, Asst. SolGen, Chief
Legal Counsel and the Assistant Chief Legal Counsel, the Chief
 State Prosecutor, and the members of the National Prosecution
Service. The intent of these laws are to give equal treatment to the
specific public officers in the executive department and the Judges
and Justices who are covered by BP 129.
5. These laws recognize that public officers who are expressly
identified in the laws by the special nature of their official
functions render services which are as important as the services
rendered by the Judges and Justices. They acknowledge the
respective roles of those public officers and of the members of the
Judiciary in the promotion of justice and the proper functioning of
our legal and judicial systems. Thus, the laws operate under the
principle of "equal in qualifications and equal in rank, equal in
salaries and benefits received."
6. Justices Veloso and Gacutan anchor their claim on Article
216 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
9347, which says that the Chairman and Members of the
Commissions shall have the same rank and salary as a CA
Associate Justice.
7. Justice Gacutan was still a Commissioner of the NLRC when
Republic Act No. 9347 took effect. From the date of
effectivity of the law onwards, her services as NLRC
Commissioner are therefore covered by the beneficial effect
of the amendment of Article 216 of the Labor Code by
Republic Act No. 9347, which gave the NLRC Commissioners
the same rank and salary as Associate Justices of the Court
of Appeals. As Republic Act No. 9347 expresses the intent to
place the NLRC Commissioners in exactly the same footing
as their counterparts in the Court of Appeals, and "salary"
includes longevity pay, then Justice Gacutan's longevity pay
should be reckoned from August 26, 2006, the date
Republic Act No. 9347 took effect, at which time she was
still NLRC Commissioner.
8. As regards her request that her entire services as NLRC
Commissioner be credited as part of her government
service for the purpose of retirement under Republic Act
No. 910, as amended by Republic Act No. 9946, the same
may be allowed as it is in accordance with Section 1 of
Republic Act No. 910, as amended by Republic Act No. 9946,
which requires 15 years of service in the Judiciary or in any
other branch of the Government as a condition for coverage
of the said law.
2nd Issue
1. Longevity pay under Section 42 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 is
treated as part of salary and extended to certain officials in the
Executive Department who are, by law, granted the same salary as
their counterparts in the Judiciary.
2. Salary covers basic monthly pay and longevity pay and this is seen
in Sec. 42 which says that longevity pay shall be added (refer to
the provision in #3).
3. Longevity pay is not a mere benefit but a component of the total
salary
3rd Issue
4. The legislative intent of salary increases for certain Executive
officials accords with "salary" as inclusive of longevity pay.
5. When the law grants to certain officials of the executive
department the " rank and salary " of a member of the
Judiciary, it should be deemed to include longevity pay,
which is part of salary; otherwise, the law's intention to
grant the same rank and salary of a justice/judge to
executive officials would be defeated or nullified.
6. In conferring upon certain officials in the Executive the same
salaries, aside from their rank, as those of their respective judicial
counterparts, Congress intended to make the salaries of the former
at par with the latter. This is reflected in the legislative records like
the discussions in the Senate which led to the passing of RA 9347
where Sen. Estrada said that arbiters be at par with RTC judges
and commissioners at par with CA justices. It is also shown in the
discussions for the enactment of other laws (RA 9417 and RA
10071).
7. Therefore, Congress knew that longevity pay is part of the total
salary of members of the Judiciary when it enacted Republic Act
Nos. 9417, 9347, and 10071, which granted certain officials of the
OSG, the NLRC, and the NPS, respectively, the same salary as
 their respective counterparts in the Judiciary. They intended to
equalize the salary.
Other Info
8. The executive contemporaneous construction of longevity
pay is consistent with the law, as interpreted by the
Supreme Court.
9. Contemporaneous construction is the interpretation or
construction placed upon the statute by an executive or
administrative officer called upon to execute or administer
the statute. It includes the construction by the Secretary of
Justice in his capacity as the chief legal adviser of the
government.
10. In this connection, the contemporaneous construction by
the Department of Justice and other offices in the executive
branch disclose a similar treatment of the longevity pay
provision of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as shown by the 2nd
Indorsement by the then Secretary of Justice, Sedfrey A.
Ordoñez.
11. ) The law is clear: the term "salary" covers basic monthly
pay plus longevity pay . (2) The concept of longevity pay as
"salary" should not be confused with "rank." (3) The
legislative intent of salary increases for certain Executive
officials accords with "salary" as inclusive of longevity pay .
(4) The Court's long-standing interpretation of the term
"longevity pay" as part of "salary" is correct. (5) The
executive contemporaneous construction of longevity pay is
consistent with the law, as interpreted by the Supreme
Court. (6) Longevity pay is not a mere "benefit."