ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. 99-5-08-SC.January 15, 2002]
RE: RESOLUTION CREATING AN ADDITIONAL POSITION OF ACA
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 15 2002.
A.M. No. 99-5-08-SC (Re: Resolution Creating an Additional Position of Assistant Court Administrator as Chief of the Public Information Office.)
For consideration is the letter, dated December 27, 2001, of Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public Information Office, seeking clarification of the qualifications for appointment to said office and of the salary and privileges of the incumbent. Atty. Khan, Jr. states that while he had been informed that his position has the same qualifications, salary, and privileges as that of a Presiding Judge of the Court of Tax Appeals, "there seems to be no official resolution or document" to this effect. He calls attention to the fact that while the Court's resolution (A.M. No. 01-8-17-SC), dated September 4, 2001, appointing Atty. Carlos L. de Leon as Assistant Court Administrator, expressly provides that the appointee shall have the same qualifications, salary, and privileges as the Presiding Judge of the Court of Tax Appeals, his own appointment by the Chief Justice of July 1, 1999 bears no such specifications.
Admittedly, A.M. No. 99-5-08-SC, dated June 22, 1999, which created the additional position of Assistant Court Administrator as Chief of the Public Information Office, is silent on the matter of the qualifications, rank, salary, and privileges of the ACA and Chief of the PIO and merely provides that the position has a salary grade 30.However, this matter is already provided for in the resolution of the Court of October 24, 1996, which created two positions of Assistant Court Administrator. This resolution, entitled Reorganizing and Strengthening the Office of the Court Administrator, states in relevant parts:
It is the declared policy of the Supreme Court to comply with its constitutional duty to exercise administrative supervision over all lower courts through the most effective and efficient means. From time to time it had adopted measures and strategies for the purpose. However, past experience and future needs render necessary the reorganization of the Office of the Court Administrator to further strengthen it as the principal arm of the Supreme Court in performing its aforementioned duty.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Supreme Court Resolved to:
. . . .
2. Create two (2) positions of Assistant Court Administrators with staff functions. The Assistant Court Administrators, who shall be appointed by the Chief Justice, shall have the same qualifications, rank, salary and privileges as the Presiding Judge of the Court of Tax Appeals.
(Emphasis added)
Hence, the Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the public
Information Office, who is actually ACA for Public Information has the same
qualification, rank, salary, and privileges as the Presiding Judge of the Court
of Tax Appeals. Pursuant to R.A. No. 1125, as amended, the Presiding Judge of
the CTA has the same qualifications, rank, category and privileges as the
Presiding Judge of the Court of Industrial Relations. C.A. No. 103, �1, as
amended, provided that the Presiding Judge of the Court of Industrial Relations
had the same qualifications as the members of the Supreme Court and was
entitled to an annual compensation of one thousand pesos more than that allowed
for Judges of the Courts of First Instance.The latter, however, has been superseded by the Salary Standardization
Law (R.A. No. 6758), as amended by E.O. No. 164, series of 1994, under which
the Office of the Presiding Judge of the Court of Tax Appeals is assigned
salary grade 30, which, as of July 2001, amounts to P346,500.00 per
annum.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
