August 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. No. 11-7-141-RTC : August 02, 2011]
RE: QUERY OF JUDGE LELU P. CONTRERAS, RTC, BRANCH 43, VIRAC, CATANDUANES, WHETHER AS ASSISTING JUDGE OF RTC, BRANCH 75, VALENZUELA CITY, SHE IS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL EXPENSE ALLOWANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE RESOLUTION OF PENDING INCIDENTS OF CASE/S
"A.M. No. 11-7-141-RTC (Re: Query of Judge Lelu P. Contreras, RTC, Branch 43, Virac, Catanduanes, Whether as Assisting Judge of RTC, Branch 75, Valenzuela City, She is Entitled to Additional Expense Allowance with Respect to the Resolution of Pending Incidents of Case/s).-The Court Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator, to
(a) NOTE the Letter dated June 10, 2011 of Hon. Lelu P. Contreras, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 43, Virac, Catanduanes, and Assisting Judge, RTC, Branch 75, Valenzuela City, seeking clarification whether she is entitled to additional expense allowance whenever she resolves cases with pending incidents although it does not necessarily terminate the same;
(b) REITERATE the Memorandum dated May 11, 2011 issued by Assistant Court Administrator Jenny Lind R. Aldecoa-Delorino with respect to a similar request of Judge Contreras, to quote:
The second paragraph of A.O Nos. 46-2010-A and/or 46-2010-AA, xxx plainly delineates the metes and bounds of her (Judge Contreras) authority over the cases/pending incidents that were left unresolved by the previous presiding judge. On the other hand, the third paragraph exclusively provides for the allowances that she may claim with the express provision that she shall be entitled to the additional expense allowance 'for every case decided.' Notably, there is no mention of any expense allowance being granted for orders or other issuances resolving pending incidents.
The resolution of a pending incident, unless it results in the termination of the proceedings, cannot be equated with a decision in a case. A case is 'decided' when a decision, resolution, or order is issued by a court, which finally disposes of the case and terminates the proceedings therein. It is, therefore, erroneous to presume that simply because a judge is directed to take cognizance of unresolved pending incidents, he/she can likewise claim the additional expense allowance for each order he/she issues to resolve the same. Had that been the intention of the Court, then resolution No. 99-1-04-SC, as amended, as well as the subsequent OCA Circulars and Administrative Orders issued pursuant thereto, would have specifically provided that when the designation of a judge is limited to decision-writing, he/she shall also be entitled to the additional expense allowance for every pending incident resolved; and
(c) DENY Judge Contreras' request for entitlement to additional expense allowance of P500.00 for every resolved incident."
Mendoza, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court