A.M. No. 13-05-04-SC - Re: Roberto A. Abad

Justice Roberto A. Abad, then Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, filed a request on May 3, 2013, asking whether his service in the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) could be accredited for the purpose of adjusting his salary by including longevity pay.
His career in the government spanned continuously from 1969 to 1986 in several capacities, with a later stint in private practice, and resumed government service upon his appointment to the Supreme Court in 2009 until his mandatory retirement in 2014.

Although his tenure on the Supreme Court was slightly below the five-year requirement for longevity pay, he sought inclusion of his prior service in the OSG to satisfy the requirement.

The Office of Administrative Services (OAS) opined on May 8, 2013 that his OSG service should not count for longevity pay during active service but recommended crediting it for retirement purposes, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence and legislative developments.
The Fiscal Management and Budget Office (FMBO), in its July 5, 2013 comment, agreed that while his OSG service could not be considered for current salary adjustment, it should be counted for the computation of his retirement longevity pay.

The provision on longevity pay under Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129 (in relation to Presidential Decree No. 1927) provides that a monthly longevity pay equivalent to 5% of the monthly basic pay shall be granted for every five years of continuous, efficient, and meritorious service in the judiciary, without allowing the total salary to exceed that of the next higher rank.
Various laws such as Republic Act (R.A.) Nos. 9417, 9347, and 10071 extended judicial rank, benefits, and salary parity to positions in the OSG, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and the National Prosecution Service (NPS).
Prior consolidated cases involving Court of Appeals Justices (Veloso, Gacutan, and Salazar-Fernando) addressed the issue of crediting service rendered outside the judiciary, with the Court at times permitting and at times denying inclusion for computing longevity pay.

On September 30, 2014, the Court deferred the action on Justice Abad’s request pending resolution of related administrative matters involving similar requests of other justices.
A closely divided Court issued a June 16, 2015 resolution on the consolidated matters, favoring some requests (e.g., Justice Salazar-Fernando’s inclusion of service as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court) but denying others (e.g., certain aspects of service outside the judiciary).
On July 26, 2016, the Court reversed its earlier denial regarding Justice Gacutan, allowing her NLRC service dating from the effective date of R.A. No. 9347 to be credited toward longevity pay.
The majority later extended this reasoning to Justice Abad, ultimately granting his request to include his entire OSG service period in the computation of his longevity pay, not just for retirement but for all purposes.

Whether service rendered outside the judiciary, specifically in the Office of the Solicitor General, can be considered judicial service for the purpose of computing longevity pay under Section 42 of B.P. Blg. 129.
Whether the inclusion of such service should benefit a justice while in active service, or be limited only for retirement purposes.
Whether the enactment of related legislative provisions (through R.A. Nos. 9417, 9347, and 10071) and the historical practice of aligning judicial ranks with certain executive positions justify crediting judicial service to those who served in the OSG.
The appropriate construction of the term “salary” in the context of longevity pay, and whether it should incorporate past service in equivalent executive positions.