A.M. No. 07-9-214-MTCC - IN RE: Rabang III

Justice Bernardo P. Pardo (retired) submitted a letter dated January 3, 2002, requesting that his longevity pay be re-computed to include his service as Chairman of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
The petition was premised on his claim that his entire service in various judicial capacities should be considered continuous despite his temporary appointment to an agency outside the traditional judiciary.

Justice Pardo’s judicial service spanned over 30 years and 6 months, comprising the following positions:

Appointed Acting Assistant Solicitor General on July 21, 1971, with the rank, salary, and privileges of a Judge of the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court).
Served as District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch 34, Caloocan City from May 3, 1974, to January 17, 1983.
Held the position of Regional Trial Court Judge, Branch 43, Manila from January 18, 1983, to March 29, 1993.
Appointed Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals from March 30, 1993, to February 16, 1995.

After resigning from the Court of Appeals on February 16, 1995, Justice Pardo assumed the position of Chairman of the COMELEC from February 17, 1995, to October 6, 1998.
Subsequently, he was appointed as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on October 7, 1998, serving until his compulsory retirement on February 10, 2002.

Justice Pardo argued that his entire tenure in the judiciary, including his service in the COMELEC, constituted continuous service due to his long history (over 30 years) in judicial positions.
He asserted that since the COMELEC exercises quasi-judicial or even judicial functions, it should be included as part of the judiciary.

He relied on Section 3 of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) No. 129, as amended, which states that any member of the Court of Appeals reappointed to the Court after serving in another governmental position shall have his service considered continuous and uninterrupted.
Justice Pardo contended that the term “Court” in the provision was meant to include not only the Court of Appeals but also the Supreme Court.

On January 14, 2002, the matter was referred to Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer, for comments and recommendations.
Atty. Candelaria submitted her recommendation on January 15, 2002, expressing that:

The COMELEC, being an independent Constitutional Commission under Section 1, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, does not form part of the judiciary.
The statutory provision of Section 3, B.P. No. 129, explicitly applies to reappointed members of the Court of Appeals, not extending to service in the COMELEC.

Whether Justice Pardo’s service as Chairman of the COMELEC should be deemed part of his continuous judicial service for purposes of computing longevity pay.

The first issue examines if the COMELEC, given its quasi-judicial functions, qualifies as part of the judiciary.

Whether the term “Court” used in Section 3 of B.P. No. 129, as amended, should be understood in a generic sense to include the Supreme Court, thereby preserving the continuity of service for justices reappointed after serving in governmental positions outside the Court of Appeals.

The second issue revolves around the interpretation of “Court” and its implications in maintaining the continuity rule for longevity pay.