Title
IN RE: Petition for Upgrading of Court of Appeals Positions
Case
A.M. No. 99-5-18-SC
Decision Date
Aug 25, 1999
CA officials sought rank and salary upgrades; SC granted some, denied others to maintain hierarchy, fiscal autonomy, and avoid distortions.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 214410)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

The administrative matter arose from a joint letter-request dated February 15, 1999, signed by the Clerk of Court, Assistant Clerk of Court, Division Clerks of Court, and the Court Reporter of the Court of Appeals (CA), reiterating a previous request made by former Presiding Justice Jorge S. Imperial on January 15, 1996. The request sought the upgrading of ranks, salaries, and privileges for CA officials, aligning with the Supreme Court’s Resolution dated June 20, 1995, which prescribed new ranks, salaries, and privileges for key positions in the Supreme Court.

Acting Presiding Justice Jesus M. Elbinias endorsed the February 1999 letter-request. Additionally, former Acting Presiding Justice Jorge S. Imperial sent another letter dated January 19, 1999, requesting the upgrading of specific positions effective January 1, 1998, including:

  • Division Chief: From Grade 24 to Grade 25
  • Assistant Chief: From Grade 22 to Grade 23
  • Court Attorney V: From Grade 26 to Grade 27
  • Court Attorney IV: From Grade 25 to Grade 26

The divisions involved in the request were the Judicial Records Division, Accounting Division, Fiscal Management & Budget Division, Cash Division, Management & Audit Division, Human Resource Management Division, Supply & Property Management Division, Information & Statistical Data Division, Medical & Dental Services Division, Library Division, and General Services Division.

On February 10, 1999, Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo recommended the grant of the request, stating that the required funding was modest and available.

On June 8, 1999, the Court En Banc referred the matter to Atty. Adelaida Cabe-Baumann, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief of the Office of Administrative Services, for comment and recommendation.

Atty. Baumann, with Atty. Luz Puno concurring, recommended:

  • Denial of the request to upgrade salary levels or grant judicial ranks to the CA Clerk of Court, CA Assistant Clerk of Court, and Court Reporter.
  • Denial of the request to upgrade the salary levels of CA Court Attorneys V and Court Attorneys IV.
  • Grant of upgrading, reclassification, or judicial ranking for:
    • Division Clerks of Court (Executive Clerk of Court II) from SG 27 to SG 28, with the rank, salary, and privileges of a Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) Judge.
    • Various Chiefs of Division from SG 24 to SG 25.
    • Various Assistant Chiefs of Division from SG 22 to SG 23.

Issues:

  • Whether the request for upgrading, reclassification, or grant of judicial ranking for certain positions in the Court of Appeals should be granted.
  • Whether the proposed upgrades align with the hierarchical structure of positions in the judiciary and the availability of funds.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.