AM 03 10 05 SC; (July, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 03-10-05-SC and A.M. No. 03-11-25-SC ; July 20, 2006
RE: (a) REQUEST OF ASSISTANT COURT ADMINISTRATOR FOR UPGRADING OF THEIR RANK, SALARY AND PRIVILEGES UPON EFFECTIVITY OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9282 ELEVATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND (b) GRANT OF SPECIAL DISTORTION ALLOWANCE TO POSITIONS IN THE JUDICIARY WITH RANK OF JUDGES OF METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, ASSISTANT CLERK OF COURT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND DIVISION CLERKS OF COURT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
FACTS
The Court previously issued a resolution on October 1, 2004, addressing the application of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9227, which grants a Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ). That resolution denied the request of Assistant Court Administrators (ACAs) to upgrade their salaries to that of a Presiding Justice of the Court of Tax Appeals. It granted ACAs the SAJ equivalent to a Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge with the highest earned increment, and granted the Assistant Clerk of Court (ACC) and Division Clerks of Court (DCCs) of the Court of Appeals, and the Executive Clerks of Court (ECCs) of the Sandiganbayan, the SAJ equivalent to a Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) judge. Following this, two officials—the CA Reporter II and a CTA Executive Clerk of Court III—requested inclusion, arguing their positions had been previously upgraded to the rank of an MeTC judge. Separately, the Fiscal Management and Budget Office (FMBO) sought clarification, noting that computing the SAJ for ACAs based on an RTC judge’s salary grade (SG 29) would result in a lower amount than the 25% of their actual SG 30 salary, potentially causing an unconstitutional diminution of benefits.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether the CA Reporter II and CTA ECC III, holding the rank of MeTC judge, are entitled to the corresponding SAJ; and (2) whether the computation of the SAJ for the ACAs under the October 1, 2004 Resolution results in an unconstitutional diminution of their salaries.
RULING
The Court granted the requests of the CA Reporter II and CTA ECC III. The legal logic is anchored on the principle of equal treatment for positions of equivalent judicial rank. Since the Court had previously conferred upon these positions the rank, salary, and privileges of an MeTC judge, and R.A. No. 9227 recognizes substantial equality in the roles of such officers within the Judiciary, they must be placed at par with their counterparts. Therefore, they are entitled to the SAJ equivalent to that of an MeTC judge.
Regarding the ACAs, the Court modified the earlier resolution to avoid a diminution of salary. The constitutional prohibition under Article VIII, Section 10 against decreasing the compensation of judiciary officials during their tenure is paramount. The FMBO correctly identified that fixing the ACAs’ SAJ strictly at the rate for an RTC judge (SG 29) would reduce the total compensation they were already receiving based on their actual salary grade (SG 30). Consequently, the Court held that incumbent ACAs at the time of the law’s effectivity shall continue to receive the SAJ computed at 25% of their actual basic monthly salary (SG 30 plus increments and longevity pay). This prospective application of the new SAJ rate (based on SG 29) shall apply only to their successors, thereby preserving the incumbents’ compensation