Case Summary (A.M. No. 02-1-12-SC)
Background of Justice Pardo's Service
Justice Bernardo P. Pardo's request for a longevity pay adjustment is predicated on his extensive service in the judiciary, spanning over thirty years. His judicial career began on July 21, 1971, with his appointment as Acting Assistant Solicitor General. Throughout his career, Justice Pardo held several significant judicial positions, including District Judge of Caloocan City, Regional Trial Court Judge, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, Chairman of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), and ultimately, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court until his compulsory retirement on February 10, 2002.
Grounds for Request
In his request, Justice Pardo posited two primary grounds for the adjustment of his longevity pay. The first ground argued for the inclusion of his tenure at COMELEC as part of his continuous judicial service, asserting that the COMELEC exercises judicial functions. The second ground cited Section 3 of Batas Pambansa No. 129, contending that his previous service as a member of the Court of Appeals should be regarded as continuous despite his service in another governmental role.
Respondent's Initial Assessment
The Court En Banc referred Justice Pardo's request for comment and recommendation to Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, who concluded that the request was untenable. Candelaria contended that COMELEC operates as an entity within the Executive Branch, not the Judiciary, countering Justice Pardo's assertion regarding the nature of his service there. Additionally, she noted that the provisions of Section 3, BP 129, apply explicitly to reappointments within the Court of Appeals, not across different branches of government.
Court's Conclusion on First Ground
The Supreme Court concurred with Atty. Candelaria regarding Justice Pardo's first contention, clarifying that COMELEC is established as an independent constitutional commission under Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, separate from the Judiciary. Therefore, Justice Pardo’s assertion that his time at COMELEC should be included in his judicial tenure was rejected.
Court's Conclusion on Second Ground
Conversely, the Court agreed with Justice Pardo’s interpretation of the term "Court" in Section 3 of Batas Pambansa No. 129, asserting that it encompasses both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. The ruling emphasized the legislative intent to regard service continuously among different judicial roles, as long as reappointment occurs after service in another governmental position.
Purpose of Longevity Pay
The Court highlighted that the spiri
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. 02-1-12-SC)
Case Citation
- 547 Phil. 170; 104 OG No. 18, 3414 (May 5, 2008) EN BANC
- AM No. 02-1-12-SC, March 14, 2007
Overview of the Case
- The case revolves around a letter from retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Bernardo P. Pardo, dated January 3, 2002, seeking an adjustment in his longevity pay.
- Justice Pardo requests inclusion of his service as Chairman of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in the computation of his longevity pay.
Grounds for Justice Pardo's Request
- First Ground: Justice Pardo argues that his service in the judiciary exceeds 30 years and should be deemed continuous.
- Appointed as Acting Assistant Solicitor General on July 21, 1971.
- His judicial service includes roles as District Judge, Regional Trial Court Judge, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, COMELEC Chairman, and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
- Second Ground: Cites Section 3 of Batas Pambansa No. 129, asserting any member of the Court of Appeals retains precedence and service is considered continuous after reappointment to the Court.
Court's Initial Referral
- On January 14, 2002, the Court En Banc referred Justice Pardo’s letter to Atty. Eden T. Candelaria for comment and recommendation.
- Atty. Candelaria submitted her comment on January 15, 2002, opposing Justice Pa