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

Case Summary (A.M. No. 13-05-04-SC)

Factual Background

Justice Abad’s request centered on the effect of his OSG service on his entitlement to longevity pay under Section 42 of B.P. Blg. 129. The OAS, in a memorandum dated May 8, 2013, opined that Justice Abad’s OSG service could not be included in computing longevity pay during his incumbency as a Court Justice because the OSG years were deemed service rendered outside of the Judiciary. However, the OAS simultaneously recommended that the OSG employment be included for retirement purposes only, citing prevailing jurisprudence and precedent.

The OAS grounded its recommendation on later legislation that allegedly extended judicial rank and associated benefits to certain OSG positions, noting in particular Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9417. It observed that R.A. 9417 had extended judicial ranks to various OSG positions and could be applied retroactively to Justice Abad. The memorandum’s dispositive portion recommended that Justice Abad’s OSG service be considered as judicial service and included in longevity pay computation upon retirement or for retirement purposes.

Administrative Referrals and Comments

After the OAS recommendation, Justice Abad, through his letter dated May 30, 2013, formally requested Court action to approve it. The matter was referred to the Fiscal Management and Budget Office (FMBO) of the Court for comment. In its July 5, 2013 comment, the FMBO maintained that Justice Abad’s OSG service could not be considered during his incumbency for longevity pay, but it recommended that it be considered for longevity pay computation for retirement purposes, with a salary adjustment effective upon retirement.

Justice Abad retired on May 22, 2014. The tenure he served as Associate Justice was four (4) years, eight (8) months, and sixteen (16) days, which fell short of the five years required by law to qualify for longevity pay if computation were limited to judicial service alone.

Deferred Action Pending Consolidated Similar Matters

On September 30, 2014, the Court resolved to defer action on Justice Abad’s request pending the resolution of A.M. No. 12-8-07-CA, which was consolidated with A.M. No. 12-9-5-SC and A.M. No. 13-02-07-SC. Those consolidated matters involved requests by Court of Appeals Justices—Vicente S.E. Veloso, Angelita A. Gacutan, and Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando—for crediting government service rendered outside the Judiciary in the computation of longevity pay.

The Court’s Consolidated Rulings in A.M. Matters

A highly divided Court resolved the consolidated administrative matters in a June 16, 2015 resolution. It granted Justice Salazar-Fernando credit for years served as Presiding Judge of the MTC, but denied credit for her tenure as COMELEC Commissioner, citing breaks in the continuity of her government/judicial service. It denied Justice Veloso’s request on the basis that R.A. No. 9347 took effect only in 2006, after Justice Veloso had left the NLRC in 2004, and because the law provided no retroactivity. It initially denied Justice Gacutan’s request by observing that her NLRC commissioner service was not equivalent to service actually rendered in the Judiciary, emphasizing that Section 42 should be construed strictly as referring to actual judicial service.

The June 16, 2015 resolution recognized that the strict construction marked a departure from earlier rulings that had allowed crediting of other government posts granted the rank-and-salary equivalent to counterparts in the Judiciary. Justice Gacutan moved for reconsideration. On July 26, 2016, the Court granted the motion for reconsideration by a vote of 10-4, adopted the reasoning associated with then Associate Justice (later Chief Justice) Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, and reversed the earlier position by ordering that Justice Gacutan’s NLRC tenure—from August 26, 2006 until her departure—be included in longevity pay computation. The Court held that longevity pay under Section 42 of B.P. Blg. 129 should be treated as part of salary and should extend to executive officials who, by law, were granted the same rank and benefits as members of the Judiciary.

Justice Leonardo-de Castro’s Conceptual Framework

The decision reiterated Associate Justice Leonardo-de Castro’s discursive framework. She treated longevity pay under Section 42 as an amount not merely added to basic pay but forming part of salary, and she emphasized that longevity pay was “salary” rather than “rank.” She argued that when Congress granted executive officials the same salaries aside from rank as their judicial counterparts, legislative intent was to equalize total compensation, and the increase in judicial salary due to longevity pay should correspondingly benefit the executive officials covered by statutes granting parity. She further posited that legislative knowledge of the longevity pay concept supported Congress’s presumed intention to adopt the statutory concept of salary inclusive of longevity pay when enacting laws that granted judicial ranks and equivalent salary and benefits.

Resolution of Justice Abad’s Request

Upon thorough consideration, the Court concluded that Justice Abad’s request was meritorious. The Court determined that Justice Abad’s entire OSG service—from his appointment as Solicitor up to the end of his stint as Assistant Solicitor General—could be credited in computing his longevity pay.

The Court traced the history of statutory and regulatory measures aligning OSG positions with judicial ranks. It referenced that as early as 1916, the Administrative Code provided that appointment qualifications for Solicitor General were the same as those for judges of the Courts of First Instance. It noted that amendments adjusted upward the judicial rank for certain OSG positions and that later enactments expanded alignment between OSG legal positions and judicial counterparts. It discussed P.D. No. 1347, effective January 1, 1978, which extended to the Solicitor General the same rank, prerogatives, and privileges as the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals, while Assistant Solicitors General received the rank, prerogatives, and privileges granted to Judges of the Courts of First Instance. It further noted that P.D. No. 1726 upgraded salaries for legal positions in the OSG in a manner similar to the Ministry of Justice, and that EO No. 780 recognized a close relationship between qualification requirements for fiscals and state prosecutorial/legal positions in the Ministry of Justice and those of solicitors in the OSG in light of new salary rates.

The Court then emphasized R.A. No. 9417, which it stated elevated ranks, prerogatives, salaries, allowances, benefits, and privileges of Assistant Solicitors General to equivalence with Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals, while other OSG positions were aligned with ranks of judges of lower courts. It also discussed the later enactment of R.A. No. 10071, which granted judicial rank to lawyers of the National Prosecution Service in a hierarchy parallel to that prescribed for their counterparts in the OSG and, importantly, included a retroactivity clause for those who had already retired. In support of that treatment, it cited the Court’s ruling in Re: Request of Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga, which clarified that retroactivity in R.A. No. 10071 could be availed not only by lawyers who retired prior to the law’s effectivity but also by former prosecutors appointed to the judiciary who were yet to retire, specifically for purposes of longevity pay computation.

Application of Precedent to Justice Abad

The Court applied the same approach to Justice Abad by connecting the statutory evolution of OSG rank alignment with the controlling concept that longevity pay is part of salary. It declared that the OAS and FMBO agreed that Justice Abad’s OSG service could be credited for longevity pay computation through the application of P.D. No. 1347 and other laws granting Solicitors judicial rank. It also relied on the retroactivity principle it had affirmed in earlier jurisprudence.

The Court rejected the OAS and FMBO view that Justice Abad’s OSG service could only be considered for longevity pay computation for retirement purposes. It reasoned that earlier consolidated rulings in the longevity pay cases had already recognized the logic of crediting service rendered outside the Judiciary where the law conferred judicial rank and benefits retroactively. It recalled that in A.M. Nos. 12-8-07-CA, 12-9-5-SC and 13-02-07-SC, the Court had first granted relief for Justice Salazar-Fernando for her MTC service notwithstanding gaps in her continuity, and it later clarified through the July 26, 2016 resolution that Justice Gacutan’s NLRC commissioner service was properly deemed judicial service from the effectivity of the statute granting judicial rank to NLRC commissioners.

The Court treated the combined application of those rulings as supporting crediting Justice Abad’s entire OSG service. It stated that Justice Abad’s service as Solicitor (January 1, 1978 to June 30, 1985) and as Assistant Solicitor General (July 1, 1985 to July 31, 1986) should be included in the computation of his longevity pay for all intents and purposes, not only upon retirement.

Dispositive Ruling

The Court granted the request contained in Justice Abad’s letters dated May 3, 2013 and May 30, 2013. It directed the Office of Administrative Services and the Fiscal Management and Budget Office to include Justice Abad’s service in the OSG in the computation of his longevity pay.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The controlling legal basis was the Court’s interpretation of Section 42 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended, in relation to statutes that conferred judicial rank, salary parity, and associated benefits on cer

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 13-05-04-SC)

The Court resolved a request of Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad seeking inclusion of his pre-judiciary service in the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in the computation of longevity pay under Section 42 of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129.
The proceedings involved evaluation and opposing recommendations from the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) and the Fiscal Management and Budget Office (FMBO), followed by deferment and reliance on the Court’s earlier resolutions in related administrative matters.
Leon en, J. filed a dissenting opinion, urging denial for reasons grounded on the statutory text of B.P. Blg. 129 and the constitutional limits against judicial legislation.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The request originated from Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad through letters dated May 3, 2013 and May 30, 2013 directed to the Court and specifically seeking salary adjustment due to longevity of service.
The Court initially referred the matter to the OAS for study on entitlement to longevity pay, including whether prior OSG service could be credited for the purpose of longevity pay while in active service.
The Court further referred the matter to the Fiscal Management and Budget Office (FMBO) for comment, which issued an adverse view as to entitlement during incumbency but recommended retirement-only crediting.
The Court resolved on September 30, 2014 to defer action pending resolution of consolidated administrative cases involving similar requests by Court of Appeals Justices concerning crediting of service outside the Judiciary for longevity pay purposes.
In June 16, 2015, the Court issued a resolution affecting the consolidated matters, then later reconsidered in July 26, 2016 by granting the motion for reconsideration and reversing its earlier restrictive stance.
After retirement, the Court granted Abad’s request, directing the OAS and FMBO to include Abad’s OSG service in longevity pay computation for all intents and purposes, not merely for retirement purposes.

Key Factual Allegations

Justice Abad served the government continuously from 1969 to 1986 in several capacities, then worked in the private sector, and rejoined government upon his appointment to the Court in 2009.
Abad served as Technical Assistant, Supreme Court from September 11, 1969 to October 23, 1975.
Abad served as Solicitor, OSG from October 24, 1975 to December 31, 1977 and as Solicitor II from January 1, 1978 to September 17, 1978.
Abad served as Solicitor III, Solicitor IV, and Solicitor V in the OSG from September 18, 1978 to April 17, 1980, April 18, 1980 to December 31, 1981, and January 1, 1982 to June 30, 1985, respectively.
Abad served as Assistant Solicitor General, OSG from July 1, 1985 to July 31, 1986.
Abad served as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court from August 7, 2009 to May 21, 2014 and retired upon reaching age 70 on May 22, 2014.
Abad’s tenure as Associate Justice lasted four (4) years, eight (8) months, and sixteen (16) days, which was described as a few months short of the five (5) years required by law to qualify for longevity pay.
The dispositive controversy was whether Abad’s OSG service should be treated as service rendered in the Judiciary for purposes of longevity pay computation under Section 42 of B.P. Blg. 129.

Statutory Framework

Section 42 of B.P. Blg. 129 provided monthly longevity pay equivalent to five percent (5%) of monthly basic pay for each five (5) years of continuous, efficient, and meritorious service rendered in the Judiciary.
Section 42 of B.P. Blg. 129 included a ceiling proviso stating that the total salary after longevity pay is added shall not exceed the salary of the Justice next in rank.
The Court treated longevity pay under Section 42 as governed by the statute’s requirement of continuous, efficient, and meritorious service rendered in the Judiciary.
The resolution discussed legislative and jurisprudential links to statutes that accorded judicial ranks and salaries to specific executive officials, notably those in the OSG, in relation to longevity pay parity.
The Court also relied on the statutory scheme and jurisprudence interpreting whether and how laws that grant judicial ranks equivalent to members of the Bench affect longevity pay computation.

Administrative Agencies’ Positions

The OAS opined that Abad’s OSG years could not be included in longevity pay computation for salary adjustment during active incumbency, reasoning that OSG service was service rendered outside of the Judiciary.
The OAS simultaneously recommended that Abad’s OSG employment be included in longevity pay upon retirement or for retirement purposes only, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence and precedent.
The OAS grounded its retirement-only recommendation on legislative developments, including Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9417, which the OAS indicated extended judicial ranks to positions in the OSG and could be applied retroactively for retirement purposes.
The FMBO disagreed as to incumbency entitlement and concluded that OSG service could not be considered for longevity pay during Abad’s incumbency.
The FMBO recommended that Abad’s OSG service be considered as judicial service for retirement purposes, and that Abad’s salary be adjusted accordingly effective upon retirement.

Prior Related Cases

The Court deferred action on Abad’s request pending the resolution of consolidated matters in A.M. No. 12-8-07-CA, A.M. No. 12-9-5-SC, and A.M. No. 13-02-07-SC, involving requests by Court of Appeals Justices for crediting government service outside the Judiciary.
In those consolidated matters, Justice Salazar-Fernando sought crediting of her judicial service as Presiding Judge of the MTC and COMELEC Commissioner.
The Court initially granted Justice Salazar-Fernando the MTC credit despite a break issue, but denied credit regarding her COMELEC stint due to continuity requirements.
The Court initially denied Justice Veloso credit for his NLRC Commissioner service because R.A. No. 9347 took effect in 2006, after he had left the NLRC in 2004, and because the law did not provide retroactivity.
The Court initially denied Justice Gacutan credit for her NLRC Commissioner service and expressed a view that Section 42 should be construed strictly to require actual service in the Judiciary, acknowledging it departed from earlier rulings.
Upon motion for reconsideration, the Court reversed itself in July 26, 2016 by adopting the position of then Associate Justice (lat