TL;DR

In a consolidated ruling, the Philippine Supreme Court clarified that longevity pay for judges and justices is strictly limited to service rendered within the judicial branch. The Court denied requests from Court of Appeals Justices to include their prior service in executive branch positions, such as the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), for longevity pay computation. The decision emphasizes a strict interpretation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, stating that longevity pay is specifically intended to reward continuous, efficient, and meritorious service within the Judiciary, not in other government branches. While prior executive service may be considered for retirement benefits under separate laws, it does not qualify as judicial service for longevity pay purposes. This ruling sets a firm precedent, limiting the scope of judicial longevity pay and reinforcing the distinct nature of service within the Judiciary.

Crossing Branches, Dividing Pay: The Supreme Court Draws a Line on Judicial Longevity

The Supreme Court of the Philippines recently addressed a knotty issue concerning judicial compensation: whether prior service in the executive branch should count towards longevity pay for justices and judges. This matter arose from the consolidated cases of three Court of Appeals Justices—Vicente S.E. Veloso, Angelita A. Gacutan, and Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando—each seeking to have their service outside the Judiciary credited for longevity pay adjustments. Justice Veloso sought credit for his time as a Commissioner at the NLRC, Justice Gacutan for her NLRC service and Justice Salazar-Fernando for her roles as both a Municipal Trial Court Judge and a COMELEC Commissioner. At the heart of these petitions lies a fundamental question: what constitutes “service in the judiciary” for the purpose of longevity pay, and can service in other branches of government be equated to it, especially when those positions carry equivalent ranks and salaries?

The legal framework governing longevity pay for justices and judges is Section 42 of Batas Pambansa Bilang (B.P. Blg.) 129, which explicitly states:

Section 42. Longevity pay. – A monthly longevity pay equivalent to 5% of the monthly basic pay shall be paid to the Justices and Judges of the courts herein created for each five years of continuous, efficient, and meritorious service rendered in the judiciary; Provided, That in no case shall the total salary of each Justice or Judge concerned, after this longevity pay is added, exceed the salary of the Justice or Judge next in rank.

The Supreme Court, in a decision penned by Justice Brion, adopted a strict and literal interpretation of this provision. The Court emphasized the “plain meaning rule” of statutory construction, asserting that the law is clear: longevity pay is exclusively for service “in the judiciary.” The Court reasoned that the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, B.P. Blg. 129, is specifically focused on the judicial branch. Therefore, unless explicitly stated otherwise, its provisions, including Section 42, are intended to apply solely to judicial service. The Court underscored that the COMELEC and NLRC, where Justices Salazar-Fernando and Gacutan served, respectively, are agencies within the executive branch, distinct and separate from the Judiciary. Service in these bodies, regardless of equivalent rank or salary to judicial positions, cannot be deemed service “in the judiciary.”

The Justices petitioning for longevity pay adjustments argued for a more liberal interpretation, citing past Supreme Court rulings, particularly the case of Justice Bernardo Pardo. In In Re: Justice Pardo, the Court allowed Justice Pardo’s service as COMELEC Chairman to be included in his longevity pay computation upon retirement. However, the Supreme Court in this new ruling distinguished the Pardo case as an exception based on very specific factual circumstances: Justice Pardo was a sitting CA Justice when appointed COMELEC Chairman and returned to the Supreme Court without interruption. The Court clarified that the Pardo ruling was a one-time liberal interpretation, not to be broadly applied or extended to situations with different factual backgrounds, especially those involving multiple breaks in judicial service or service in positions not directly linked to the judiciary’s core functions.

Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that laws granting equivalent rank and salary to executive officials, such as Republic Act No. 9347 for NLRC Commissioners and Republic Act No. 9417 for the Office of the Solicitor General, automatically equate executive service to judicial service for longevity pay purposes. The Court held that these laws, while granting parity in compensation, do not amend or override the specific requirement of “service in the judiciary” in B.P. Blg. 129. The intention of these parity laws, according to the Court, was merely to make executive salaries comparable to judicial salaries for similarly demanding roles, not to blur the lines between executive and judicial service for all benefits, especially longevity pay, which is intrinsically tied to judicial tenure.

In its resolution, the Supreme Court granted Justice Salazar-Fernando’s request to credit her service as an MTC Judge, as this was undeniably judicial service. However, it denied her request to credit her COMELEC service. Similarly, Justice Gacutan’s request to credit her NLRC service for longevity pay was denied, although her NLRC service was acknowledged as creditable for retirement purposes under Republic Act No. 910, which considers overall government service. Justice Veloso’s motion for reconsideration was also denied, reinforcing the Court’s stance against retroactive application of rank equivalency for longevity pay.

The Supreme Court explicitly addressed concerns about fairness and consistency, acknowledging past rulings that may have liberally interpreted longevity pay. However, it firmly stated that these past rulings, to the extent they deviated from the plain language of Section 42, were erroneous and should not be followed. The Court emphasized that while it had previously shown liberality, such liberality cannot extend to judicial legislation, rewriting the law to suit perceived equities. The decision reflects a move towards a more textualist approach to statutory interpretation, prioritizing the explicit wording of the law over broader notions of parity or fairness when those notions are not clearly supported by the statute itself. This ruling serves as a significant clarification, reinforcing the distinct nature of judicial service and setting a stricter standard for longevity pay eligibility in the Philippine Judiciary.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: RE: LETTER OF COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICE VICENTE S.E. VELOSO FOR ENTITLEMENT TO LONGEVITY PAY FOR HIS SERVICES AS COMMISSION MEMBER III OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, A.M. No. 12-9-5-SC, June 16, 2015