Case Summary (A.M. No. 13-09-08-SC)
Issue Presented
The Supreme Court was asked for guidance and clarification regarding the applicability of Section 7, Rule III of RA No. 10154—which requires retiring government employees to secure clearance of pendency or non-pendency of administrative cases from the Civil Service Commission (CSC)—to retiring Judiciary employees.
Constitutional Basis and Judiciary’s Power of Supervision
Under Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court has exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel. This constitutional grant empowers the Court to oversee court personnel’s compliance with all laws and to take appropriate administrative actions against violations. The Court also maintains custody of records that pertain to administrative cases against retiring court personnel. This exclusive power inherently includes the authority to require clearances concerning administrative cases.
Inapplicability of CSC Clearance for Retiring Judiciary Employees
The Court held that the requirement under Section 7, Rule III of RA No. 10154, which mandates that retiring employees secure a clearance of pendency or non-pendency of administrative cases from the CSC, is inapplicable to Judiciary employees. Enforcing such a requirement would undermine the Court’s constitutionally enshrined power of administrative supervision and control over its personnel. Furthermore, retiring court personnel are already mandated to obtain a clearance from the Court itself regarding administrative cases, rendering any CSC clearance redundant and inconsistent with the law’s policy of ensuring the timely and expeditious release of retirement benefits.
Inapplicability of Clearance from the Office of the President and the Office of the Ombudsman
The Court extended the reasoning to clarify that a clearance of pendency or non-pendency of administrative cases from the Office of the President—despite some court personnel being presidential appointees—and from the Office of the Ombudsman should similarly not be required of retiring Judiciary employees. The rationale is that all matters related to administrative supervision of court personnel fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Judiciary and that subjecting judicial employees to clearances outside this supervisory authority would contravene constitutional mandates.
Distinction Between Administrative Clearances and Criminal Cases
While the Judiciary exercises exclusive administrative supervision over its personnel, criminal case clearances are a separate matter. The Court recognized that clearance requirements related to criminal cases may be imposed by the appropriate government agency, such as the Office of the Ombudsman. This is because the authority to investigate and prosecute criminal offenses committed by public officers is plenary and unqualified under RA 6770 and is beyond the Judiciary’s
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 13-09-08-SC)
Factual and Procedural Background
- This case was brought before the Supreme Court En Banc through a Memorandum dated September 18, 2013, authored by Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer, Office of Administrative Services of the Supreme Court.
- The request sought guidance and clarification on the applicability of Section 7, Rule III of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10154 to the Judiciary.
- The mentioned provision mandates retiring government employees to secure a Clearance of Pendency/Non-Pendency of Administrative Case from their employer agency, the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the Office of the Ombudsman, or, for presidential appointees, from the Office of the President.
- The issue addresses whether this clearance requirement should be imposed on retiring judiciary personnel.
Relevant Legal Provisions and Constitutional Mandates
- Section 7, Rule III of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 10154 sets the clearance procedure for retiring government employees regarding administrative case pendency.
- Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution vests the Supreme Court with exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel.
- This constitutional power includes overseeing court personnel’s compliance with laws and imposing administrative actions against violations.
- RA 10154 declares as State policy the timely and expeditious release of retirement benefits, emphasizing that retired public servants should not be subjected to undue delays.
The Court’s Analysis on Administrative Supervision and Clearance Requirements
- The Court recognized that the Judiciary has a constitutionally enshrined exclusive authority to administer supervision over its personnel.
- Given this exclusive power, requiring retiring court employees to secure clearance from the CSC, as provided in RA 10154, would infringe on the Judiciary’s constitutional prerogative.
- Retiring judiciary personnel are already required to obtain a clearance from the Court itself, which makes CSC clearance redundant, superfluous, and contrary to the goal of expeditious processing as declared in RA 10154.
- Similarly, the Court opined that a prior clearance from the Office of the President—applicable to some court personnel who are presidential appointees—or from the Office of the Ombuds