G.R. No. A.M. No. 12-8-07-CA, A.M. No. 12-9-5-SC, A.M. No. 13-02-07-SC, June 16, 2015
Re: Letter of Court of Appeals Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso for Entitlement to Longevity Pay for His Services as Commission Member III of the National Labor Relations Commission; Re: Computation of Longevity Pay of Court of Appeals Justice Angelita A. Gacutan; Re: Request of Court of Appeals Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando that Her Services as MTC Judge and as COMELEC Commissioner be considered as Part of Her Judicial Service and Included in the computation/adjustment of Her longevity pay

FACTS

This case consolidates three administrative matters concerning the entitlement to longevity pay under Section 42 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), as amended, for three Court of Appeals (CA) Justices based on prior government service.
1. A.M. No. 12-8-07-CA: CA Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso sought reconsideration of a prior denial of his request to credit his services as a Commissioner of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) prior to his CA appointment for longevity pay computation.
2. A.M. No. 12-9-5-SC: CA Justice Angelita A. Gacutan requested that her services as NLRC Commissioner IV from March 3, 1998, to November 5, 2009, be credited as part of her judicial service for retirement purposes, that she be granted a 10% longevity pay, and that her salary and benefits be adjusted retroactively from her CA appointment. The Financial Management and Budget Office (FMBO) recommended granting crediting for retirement benefits only, but denying salary adjustments.
3. A.M. No. 13-02-07-SC: CA Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando requested that her services as a Municipal Trial Court (MTC) Judge and as a Commissioner of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) be considered part of her judicial service for longevity pay computation, seeking an adjustment from 10% to 20% effective May 25, 1999. The Office of Administrative Services (OAS) recommended crediting her MTC service but denying COMELEC service for longevity pay adjustment, though it could be included upon retirement.
The ponencia by Justice Brion granted Salazar-Fernando’s request regarding MTC service but denied all others, including Veloso’s motion for reconsideration and Gacutan’s request for longevity pay based on NLRC service. Justice Leonardo-De Castro, in a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, concurred with the denial of Veloso’s motion and Salazar-Fernando’s COMELEC request but dissented regarding Gacutan, proposing that her NLRC service be credited for retirement and that she receive a 5% longevity pay from August 26, 2006. Justice Velasco, in a Separate Opinion, argued for granting the requests of Veloso and Gacutan to include NLRC service in longevity pay computation.

ISSUE

Whether the prior services of the CA Justices in other government agencies (specifically the NLRC and COMELEC) should be credited as part of their “continuous, efficient, and meritorious service rendered in the judiciary” for purposes of computing longevity pay under Section 42 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.

RULING

The Separate Opinion of Justice Velasco argues that the requests of Justices Veloso and Gacutan to include their NLRC Commissioner services in the computation of their longevity pay should be granted. The opinion disagrees with the ponencia’s narrow interpretation that longevity pay is unique to judicial service and cannot include service outside the Judiciary. Key arguments include:
1. Legal Parity Principle: Laws such as Republic Act No. 9147 grant NLRC Commissioners salaries, benefits, and ranks equivalent to CA Justices, establishing parity. The intent is to treat these executive officials similarly to judiciary members in qualifications, rank, and compensation.
2. Salary Includes Longevity Pay: The term “salary” in these parity laws encompasses basic monthly pay plus longevity pay, as supported by the Court’s long-standing interpretation and executive contemporaneous construction. Longevity pay is not a mere “benefit” but part of salary.
3. Distortion of Intent: Denying NLRC Commissioners the ability to tack their service to judicial service for longevity pay distorts the legislative intent to equalize salaries and benefits between these officials and CA Justices.
4. Precedent and Due Process: The ponencia’s approach would unfairly “freeze” the longevity pay of other justices (e.g., Justices De Leon and Lampas-Peralta) who previously benefited from similar crediting, which would be confiscatory and violate due process.
Justice Velasco concludes that Justices Veloso and Gacutan, during their NLRC tenure, were entitled to salaries and benefits equivalent to CA Justices, and thus, their NLRC service should be included in longevity pay computation to uphold legislative intent and fairness. He votes to grant their requests.