ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M No. 99-5-15-SC-PHILJA. November 22, 1999]

RE: LETTER OF FORMER PHILJA VICE-CHANCELLOR GROSPE

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder for your information,, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 22, 1999.

A.M. No. 99-5-15-SC-PHILJA (Re: Letter of former PHILJA Vice-Chancellor Nathanael M. Grospe.)

In the Resolution of 7 September 1999 we referred this case back to the Office of the Chief Attorney for further study in light of our resolutions in the cases of Justice Jose C. Campos Jr. and Judge Cezar C. Peralejo, both retired members of the Judicial and Bar Council. Additionally, we required the Chief Attorney to make a study and report on the request of Mme. Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera, PHILJA Chancellor, that services of full-time Professors of the Academy be likewise considered "service in the judiciary."

In her Report dated 12 October 1999 the Chief Attorney reiterated her recommendation that the request of former Vice-Chancellor Nathanael M. Grospe be granted and the services of the PHILJA Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor rendered under A.O. No. 35-96 be considered "service in the judiciary." ¹ Favorable recommendation on this letter-request of former Vice-Chancellor Grospe was previously set out in a Memorandum dated 19 March 1999 addressed to the Chief Justice.The reasons given to support the recommendation were: First, under A.O. No. 35-96, the Court has discretion to consider as "service in the judiciary" the services of the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor for purposes of retirement. Second, the stringent qualifications required for the positions of Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor reflect the Court's recognition of the important functions they perform in the administration of justice. Third, the Court granted judicial ranking on 20 June 1995 to the Court's key officials, i.e., Clerk of Court and Chiefs of Offices who perform strictly non-judicial functions like the PHILJA Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor. Fourth, invoking its powers of administration, supervision and control over the PHILJA as well as its constitutionally mandated fiscal autonomy, the Court may grant the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor the same benefits allowed judicial officials. Fifth, A.O. No. 35-96 recognized the services rendered by the then incumbent PHILJA executive officials and allowed them to continue serving as such. ² Should be R.A. No. 8557, specifically Sec. 6, par. 4 thereof, which reads: "The incumbent Executive Officials of the Academy who were duly appointed by the Supreme Court and qualified as such shall continue in their respective positions until the expiration of their initial terms, without prejudice to their appointment as provided in this section." Sixth, the amount involved in granting the request would be minimal considering that only the three (3) PHILJA executive officials would be benefited. ³ Actually only two (2) would be benefited, i.e., incumbent Chancellor Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera and the late Nathanael M. Grospe, former Vice-Chancellor, because they alone served under A.O. No. 35-96. The position of PHILJA Executive Secretary was vacant until Judge Priscilla S. Agana was appointed as the first Executive Secretary on 6 July 1999.

On the possible relevance of the cases of former members of the Judicial and Bar Council, the Chief Attorney is of the view, which we sustain, that there are marked differences between the functions of the JBC and those of the PHILJA, to wit: (a) the power of the JBC to screen and recommend applicants for judicial office, although vital, is merely recommendatory, while the task of the PHILJA to formulate and implement a continuing program of judicial education for justices, judges, court personnel and lawyers is not; (b) the powers of the PHILJA, unlike those of the JBC, are substantially and essentially judicial in character as it undertakes the task of educating public officials charged with adjudicatory functions in the proper dispensation of justice; (c) no legal basis exists for considering the services of the JBC members as "service in the judiciary," on the other hand, A.O. No. 35-96 and R.A. No. 8557 expressly and clearly provide that service of PHILJA executive officials "may" and "shall" be considered "service in the judiciary," respectively.

With regard to the service of full-time Professors of the PHILJA, particularly referring to Professors I and Professors II with the same salary grades as RTC Judges (SG 29) and Court of Appeals Justice (SG 30), respectively, the Chief Attorney finds no legal basis to grant the request. She points out that neither A.O. No. 35-96 nor R.A. No. 8557 provides that service of such professors be considered "service in the judiciary" in the same way that it is so provided with respect to the services of the Executive Officials of PHILJA; hence, the Chief Attorney recommends that the request be denied.

We need not overemphasize the very vital role played by PHILJA Chancellor Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera and former Vice-Chancellor Nathanael M. Grospe in executing and implementing the Court's duty of ensuring the competence and integrity of the judiciary through an institutionalized, integrated, professionalized and continuing system of judicial education for justices, judges, court personnel, and lawyers, particularly at the inception of PHILJA. No lengthy disquisition is required to justify considering their services under A.O. No. 35-96 as "service in the judiciary." In fact, due recognition of the invaluable role of these PHILJA officials is now reflected in R.A. No. 8557 which mandatorily requires that their service be considered "service in the judiciary" for purposes of retirement. ⁴ Penultimate paragraph, Sec. 6, R.A. No. 8557, which reads: "For purposes of retirement privileges, seniority, and other benefits, service of the executive officials in the Academy shall be considered as service in the Judiciary, except in those cases not allowed by law." (Emphasis ours.)

ACCORDINGLY, the letter-request dated 26 February 1999 of former PHILJA Vice-Chancellor Nathanael M. Grospe is GRANTED. Consequently, the service rendered by the PHILJA Chancellor as well as by the Vice-Chancellor under A.0. No. 35-96 is considered "service in the judiciary" for purposes of the retirement privileges, seniority and other benefits provided in R.A. No. 8557. However, the request for a similar grant with respect to the service of full-time Professors I and Professors II of the Academy is DENIED for lack of legal basis.

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