Title
Re: Vicente S.E. Veloso
Case
A.M. No. 12-8-07-CA
Decision Date
Jun 16, 2015
Three justices sought credit for prior non-judicial services (COMELEC, NLRC) for longevity pay and retirement benefits. Court ruled: MTC service credited, COMELEC/NLRC service mostly denied; RA 9347 not retroactive.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 144274)

Requests Made by the Petitioners

  1. Justice Veloso: Seeks longevity pay based on his service as Commissioner of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) prior to his appointment as Associate Justice.
  2. Justice Gacutan: Requests credit for her service at the NLRC towards her retirement benefits and a longevity pay adjustment.
  3. Justice Salazar-Fernando: Requests that her services as a Municipal Trial Court Judge and as a Commissioner of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) be recognized for longevity pay benefits.

Background and Previous Recommendations

The requests from Justices Veloso and Gacutan were analyzed and resulted in recommendations from the Financial Management and Budget Office (FMBO) to allow Gacutan's service at the NLRC to be credited only for retirement benefits, while recommending denial for adjustment of both Justices' longevity pay. Justice Salazar-Fernando's requests were partially granted by recognizing her prior role as a trial court judge but not her work with the COMELEC.

Legal Framework for Longevity Pay

The legal basis for longevity pay is outlined in Section 42 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, which stipulates that justices and judges receive a monthly longevity pay equal to 5% of their basic pay for every five years of continuous service in the Judiciary. The provision emphasizes that only services rendered in the Judiciary qualify for such pay.

Decisions Regarding Each Justice's Request

  1. Justice Salazar-Fernando: Her prior service as an MTC Judge was granted inclusion for longevity pay. However, her request to credit her time at COMELEC was denied as it does not constitute service in the Judiciary.

  2. Justice Gacutan: Her request to consider her NLRC service for longevity pay was denied to the extent that she had requested retroactive adjustments. The Court recognized her NLRC service for retirement purposes but not for longevity pay. The reasoning was based on the clear wording of Section 42 of B.P. Blg. 129, which does not permit credit for services outside of the Judiciary.

  3. Justice Veloso: His motion for reconsideration was denied, as his claim for retroactive application of RA 9347 was rejected by the Court due to the lack of express retroactivity in the law. The Court emphasized that the only relevant service was that rendered as a member of the NLRC prior to his judicial appointment.

Principles from Related Cases

The discussion referenced previous decisions, notably the Pardo ruling, which allowed recognition of services in various positions under certain conditions. In that case, the Court applied a liberal interpretation suggesting that continuous service could include some roles outside the Judiciary if the service was characterized by uninterrupted transitions. However, the current case distinguished that Justice Pardo’s situation involved different factual circumstances not applicable to the justices in these consolidated matters.

Legislative Intent and Interpretation

The legislative intent behind the laws invoked was examined, particularly focusing on whether they aimed for

...continue reading

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