A.M. No. 13-05-04-SC, August 14, 2019
RE: REQUEST OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ROBERTO A. ABAD FOR SALARY ADJUSTMENT DUE TO LONGEVITY OF SERVICE, DISSENTING OPINION

FACTS

Former Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad requested that his service in the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) from 1975 to 1986 be included in computing his longevity pay. His service as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court was four years, eight months, and 16 days, which is short of the five-year requirement under the law to qualify for longevity pay. The majority granted his request. This dissenting opinion argues against crediting non-judiciary service for longevity pay.

ISSUE

Whether services rendered in an executive branch position, specifically the Office of the Solicitor General, can be credited in computing the longevity pay of a member of the judiciary.

RULING

No. The dissenting opinion argues that the Court must vacate its ruling that recognizes services rendered outside the judiciary in computing longevity pay. Longevity pay, under Section 42 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, is granted for “each five years of continuous, efficient, and meritorious service rendered in the judiciary.” The clear and unambiguous letter of the law requires that the service be rendered within the judiciary. Crediting service in the OSG, an executive office, contradicts this purpose and constitutes judicial legislation. None of the laws cited by the majority, such as Republic Act Nos. 945, 2068, 3465, 3596, Presidential Decree No. 1347, or Republic Act No. 9417, expressly extend the benefit of longevity pay to executive officials or sanction the practice of crediting their service for judicial longevity pay. The prior cases (e.g., Request of Judge Fernando Santiago, Re: Adjustment of Longevity Pay of Hon. Justice Emilio A. Gancayco) that approved such crediting were Minute Resolutions lacking sufficient legal basis. The dissent strongly recommends enjoining this practice as baseless.