A.M. No. 11-10-7-SC; February 14, 2012
Re: Request of Justice JOSEFINA GUEVARA-SALONGA, Court of Appeals, that her services as Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Laguna be credited as part of her services in the Judiciary for purposes of her retirement.

FACTS

Court of Appeals Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga requested that her prior service as an Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Laguna be credited as judicial service for computing her retirement benefits, as she was set to retire on February 14, 2012. Her government service record showed she served as a Legal Researcher, Special Counsel, and then as Acting and later 3rd Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Laguna from 1972 to 1987, before her appointments as an RTC Judge and subsequently as a CA Justice.
The Office of Administrative Services (OAS) recommended denial of her request. The OAS cited Republic Act No. 10071 (The Prosecution Service Act of 2010), which equated the ranks and benefits of prosecutors with judges, but noted its Section 24 granted retroactive benefits only to those who had retired prior to the law’s effectivity. Since Justice Guevara-Salonga was retiring after the law took effect, the OAS concluded the retroactivity clause did not apply to her. It further distinguished her case from prior rulings involving the Chief State Prosecutor and Chief Legal Counsel, whose positions were explicitly given the same rank and salary as judges under specific statutes.

ISSUE

Whether Justice Guevara-Salonga’s service as an Assistant Provincial Fiscal should be credited as part of her judicial service for retirement benefit computation under R.A. No. 10071 .

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the request, reversing the OAS recommendation. The Court held that the OAS misinterpreted Section 24 of R.A. No. 10071 . The general rule is that laws operate prospectively. By expressly stating that the benefits under Sections 14 and 16 shall be granted even to those who retired prior to the effectivity of the Act, Section 24 created a specific exception for past retirees. This exception, however, does not imply exclusion for those still in service or retiring after the law’s passage. The logical and intended application of the law is to apply the upgraded benefits prospectively to all current and future service. Therefore, Justice Guevara-Salonga, who rendered prosecutorial service and was retiring after the law took effect, is clearly entitled to have that service credited as judicial service for retirement purposes. This ruling is consistent with the principle established in prior resolutions involving Justices Gancayco and Dela Fuente, where previous prosecutorial services were credited based on statutes granting their positions rank and salary equivalent to judges. R.A. No. 10071 now provides the same statutory basis for equating the relevant prosecutorial positions with judges, thereby validating the crediting of such service.