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

Three consolidated administrative matters involve requests from Court of Appeals Justices for the crediting of previous government service in the computation of their judicial longevity pay. Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando requested that her prior service 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 adjustment. Justice Angelita A. Gacutan requested that her service as a Commissioner IV of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) be credited as judicial service for retirement and longevity pay purposes. Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso filed a motion for reconsideration assailing the denial of his request to credit his service as an NLRC Commissioner for adjusting his salary and longevity pay, arguing that Republic Act No. 9347 (which amended the Labor Code and gave NLRC Commissioners the rank of a CA Justice) should be applied retroactively as a curative statute.

ISSUE

Whether the previous government services rendered by the petitioner Justices outside the Judiciary (specifically in the COMELEC and the NLRC) can be credited as “service rendered in the judiciary” for the purpose of computing longevity pay under Section 42 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled partially in favor of the petitioners, drawing distinctions based on the nature of the prior service and the specific legal provisions involved.
1. Regarding Justice Salazar-Fernando’s MTC Service: Her service as an MTC Judge is granted to be credited as judicial service for longevity pay computation, as it constitutes “continuous, efficient, and meritorious service rendered in the Judiciary” under Section 42 of B.P. Blg. 129.
2. Regarding Justice Salazar-Fernando’s COMELEC Service: The request to credit her COMELEC service as judicial service for longevity pay is denied. The COMELEC is an agency independent of the Judiciary, and longevity pay under B.P. Blg. 129 is exclusively for service rendered within the Judiciary. The Court distinguished her case from that of retired Justice Bernardo P. Pardo, whose COMELEC service was credited upon retirement based on peculiar factual circumstances: he was an incumbent CA Justice appointed as COMELEC Chairman and was later appointed to the Supreme Court without interruption, leading the Court to liberally interpret a provision (Section 3 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by E.O. No. 33) to consider his service as continuous and uninterrupted within the judiciary.
3. Regarding Justices Gacutan and Veloso’s NLRC Service: The requests to credit their NLRC service for longevity pay are denied. The Court held that the NLRC is an agency under the Executive Department, not the Judiciary. Therefore, service as an NLRC Commissioner cannot be considered “service rendered in the judiciary” under the clear terms of Section 42 of B.P. Blg. 129. The Court rejected the argument for the retroactive application of R.A. No. 9347 , finding no legislative intent for such retroactivity, and noted that the law equated the rank but not the nature of the office (executive vs. judicial) for longevity pay purposes.