[A.M. No. 99-9-34-CA.February 29, 2000]

RE: CREATION OF ADD'L. LAWYER POSITIONS IN THE CA

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 29 2000 .

����������� A.M. No. 99-9-34-CA(Re: Creation of Additional Lawyer Positions in the Court of Appeals.)

In his letter-request of 16 September 1999, then Presiding Justice Jesus M. Elbinias of the Court of Appeals sought the creation of fifty-one (51) additional positions of Court Attorney V and fifty-one (51) new positions of Court Attorney VI to be assigned to each of the offices of the Justices in the Court of Appeals, to be funded by available savings in the Judiciary.The request was justified in this wise:

Recent developments in law and pronouncements of the Supreme Court increasing the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals are expected to result in an avalance [sic] of cases to this Court.At present, each of the fifty-one (51) justices has only two (2) lawyers in his staff holding Court Attorney V items to cope with the pressing situation.

Our records show that at the start of the year, there were about 16,000 pending cases in our court docket.With decisions in labor cases and administrative cases decided by the Ombudsman elevated to this Court on initial appeal, pursuant to the St. Martin Funeral Home and Norman Fabian cases, there has been a substantial increment of cases pending in our Court.

The Court referred the request to Atty. Adelaida Cabe-Baumann, then Chief of the Office of Administrative Services, Supreme Court.

In her Memorandum of 1 December 1999, Atty. Baumann recommended the creation of two additional positions of Court Attorney V for each office of the Justices of the Court of Appeals, to be funded by the available savings of the said court. Thus:

Presently, there are only ten (10) staff members in the office of a CA Justice, eight (8) of whom occupy non-lawyer items (Executive Assistant, stenographer, clerk, chauffeur, utility worker), while two (2) are lawyers holding Court Attorney V positions.In terms of number of personnel, the office of a CA Justice pales in comparison with the office of whom are non-lawyers while seven (7) are lawyers.In addition, a Justice in this Court has five (5) staff members under the PET plantilla.

Thus, in order to address the increasing number of cases clogging the docket of the Court of Appeals, brought about by the influx of cases, particularly labor cases on appeal from the NLRC as a consequence of this Court's ruling in the St. Martin Funeral Home case, we recommend approval of the proposed creation of additional positions in that Court.

However, we recommend denial as to:

1. the creation of 51 new positions of Court Attorney VI with Salary Grade 27;and

2. the sourcing of the needed funds from the available savings in the Judiciary.

The position of Court Attorney VI with SG 27 is the highest class in the hierarchy of court attorney positions.This class of positions was created by DBM for the exclusive use of the Supreme Court per DBM letter dated December 5, 1996 (Annex "A").Thus, in our comment in AM No. 99-5-18-SC - Re: Upgrading of Court of Appeals Positions, we recommended denial of the petition to reclassify and/or upgrade the positions of Court Attorney V in the Court of Appeals to Court Attorney VI as we believe that the latter position-title should be made exclusive to the lawyers in the Supreme Court owing to the prestige and honor due them as attorneys in the highest court of the land.This view was sustained by this Honorable Court in its Resolution dated August 25, 1999, when it denied, among others, the petition to reclassify/upgrade the position of Court Attorney V in the Court of Appeals to Court Attorney VI.

In lieu of the proposed 51 new positions of Court Attorney VI with SG 27, we recommend instead that the proposed creation of 51 additional positions of Court Attorney V with SG 26 be doubled, that is, be increased to a total of 102 positions (2 positions per office of the CA Justices), subject of course to the availability of funds.

In the General Appropriations Act (GAA), the appropriations of the Court of Appeals are provided under specific provisions of the said law which are separate and distinct from those of this Court and the Lower Courts.While the Court of Appeals is certainly a component of the Judiciary, it, nevertheless, administers and operates under its own budget.Consequently, savings from the budget of the Court of Appeals cannot be utilized, without encountering legal problems, to fund the creation or upgrading of positions in other courts.In like manner, the savings of this Court, or of the Lower Courts, or of the Sandiganbayan or the CTA, cannot be used to fund the proposed creation of positions in the Court of Appeals.

Should the Honorable Court decide to approve the creation of additional lawyer-positions in the Court of Appeals, it is respectfully submitted that the necessary funding for the proposed positions should come solely from the savings of the said Court.

It turned out, however, that in his letter of 17 September 1999 to the Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management then Presiding Justice Elbinias impliedly agreed to the recommendation of the Secretary for the creation of forty-eight (48) Court Attorney IV positions with salary grade 25 "as stated in the FY 2000 National Expenditure Program, page 1313, under lump sum for creations of new positions." Likewise, in his 1st indorsement dated 14 October 1999, Mr. Presiding Justice Elbinias recommended favorable action on the request for the upgrading of the nineteen (19) Executive Assistants IV (SG-22) to Executive Clerk of Court I (SG-24).

In his letter of 29 December 1999 to the Chief Justice, received by the latter's office on 12 January 2000, Secretary Benjamin Diokno of the Department of Budget and Management referred to the Chief Justice the matter of the "creation of the forty-eight (48) positions of Court Attorney IV, SG-25 and the reclassification of nineteen (19) positions of Executive Assistant IV, SG-22, to Executive Clerk of Court I, SG-26 * Should be SG-24 per PJ Elbinias' 17 September 1999 letter to Secretary Benjamin Diokno [sic]." The Secretary informed the Chief Justice that staffing modifications of agencies under the Judiciary may be effected per item 1 of the Special Provision Applicable to the Judiciary, page 1065, CY 1999 GAA, which provides that "the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is authorized to . make adjustments in the personal services itemization including but not limited to, the transfer of items or creation of new positions in the Judiciary." He also invited the attention of the Chief Justice that Executive Clerk of Court I positions require membership in the Bar per the qualification standards set by the Civil Service Commission.

We referred the aforementioned letter of Secretary Diokno to Atty. Adelaida Cabe-Baumann for comment.In her Memorandum dated 21 January 2000, Atty. Baumann reiterated her recommendation for the creation of 102 Court Attorney V positions in the Court of Appeals.As to the reclassification of the nineteen (19) Executive Assistant IV positions to Executive Clerk of Court I, SG-24, Atty. Baumann made the following observations and recommendation:

Under the Personal Services Itemization (PSI) of the Court of Appeals, there are 17 authorized positions of Executive Assistant IV with SG 22 assigned in the respective offices of the 17 Division Clerks of Court.Next to the Division Clerks of Court, the Executive Assistants IV are the highest ranking personnel in the said offices.Hence, in the absence of the Division Clerk of Court of a particular division, the Executive Assistant IV assigned in the division acts as Officer-In-Charge of the office.

However, notwithstanding the actual duties and functions performed by the Executive Assistant IV xxxx as well as the attendant high degree of responsibility which are inherently attached to the subject position, as manifested by PJ Elbinias in his letter to Secretary Diokno, we are not inclined to recommend the reclassification of the said positions to Executive Clerk of Court I with Salary Grade 26 [sic].

As aptly observed by Secretary Diokno, the position of Executive Clerk of Court I requires the membership in the Bar (RA 1080).Not one among the incumbent Executive Assistants IV is a member of the Bar per certification of Ms. Juanita P. Tibayan, Chief of the Personnel Division, Court of Appeals.

Moreover, it is undoubted that should the proposed reclassification is granted without considering the rest of the CA rank-and-file employees, the same would not only cause an uproar of criticisms and protests, but would even sow the seeds of demoralization, among the employees of the Court of Appeals considering the large amount of salary increases that would result thereby, not to mention that those whose positions are to be reclassified would be entitled to representation and transportation allowances (RATA).

Then, in a letter dated 22 February 2000 addressed to DBM Secretary Diokno, through the Chief Justice, then Acting, now permanent, Presiding Justice Salome A. Montoya requested the formal creation and filling-up of the forty-eight (48) Court Attorney IV positions with salary grade 25.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING , the Court hereby Resolves to create FIFTY-ONE (51) coterminous positions of ATTORNEY IV, SALARY GRADE 25, one for each of the offices of the Presiding Justice and the Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals, with the following duties and responsibilities:

1. Make a preliminary study of the cases assigned by the Justice.

2. Analyze the cases assigned and state the pros and cons of the litigated issues therein.

3. Research relevant materials and jurisprudence, and compile important rulings in recent decisions of the Supreme Court.

4. Prepare and submit a report on the cases assigned.

A Court Attorney IV must be a member of good standing of the Philippine Bar.No experience is required for his or her initial employment as such.

The salaries and other benefits for the positions herein created shall be charged against the Court of Appeals' appropriations for the purpose under the General Appropriations Act of CY 2000; and in the event of any deficiency, the same shall be charged against the savings in the other items of its appropriations either for CY 2000 or 1999.

All these new positions shall be carried in the General Appropriations Act of the succeeding years and be regularly funded accordingly.

The creation of the above positions shall take effect on 1 March 2000.

Action on the request for the reclassification of the nineteen (19) positions of Executive Assistant IV to Executive Clerk of Court I is deferred.

Let copies of this Resolution be immediately furnished the Honorable Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management, the Court of Appeals through the Presiding Justice, and the Court Administrator.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com