ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 174237 : February 18, 2010 TERESITA L. ARAOS, CORAZON L. BALAGBIS, ROBERTO B. BAUTISTA, MARITA S. BELTRAN, RAUL A. CASIANO, HIDELZA B. CASTILLO, ELEONORA CINCO, MAY CATHERINE C. CIRIACO, ERLINDA G. DEL ROSARIO, AMELITA C. DELA TORRE, ALMA R. FAUSTO, ANTONETTE L. FERNANDEZ, CORITA M. GADUANG, VIRGINIA E. GALLARDE, MA. LUZ C. GENEROSO, MA. TERESA C. IGNACIO, EDDIE A. JARA, JOSIE MAGANA, ANTONIO G. MARALIT, NANCIANCINO L. MONREAL, MARIBEL D. ORTIZ, ALAN GENE O. PADILLA, JESUS C. PAJARILLO, MIGUEL E. ROCA JR., EDGAR M. SANDALO, AGNES E. SAN JOSE, EVELYN P. SAAYON, JUDY FRANCES A. SEE, MARIO R. SIBUCAO, CARMEN O. SORIANO, and ARNOLD A. TOLENTINO, Petitioners, v. HON. LEA REGALA, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 226, Quezon City and SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (SSS), Respondents. D E C I S I O N CARPIO MORALES, J.: On December 16, 1975, Presidential Decree No. 847, "ADOPTING A COMPENSATION SCHEME FOR THE CAREER EXECUTIVE SERVICE AND RELATED MATTERS," was issued, its provision pertinent to the case at bar reads: SECTION 3. As a general rule, the salaries of Career Executive Service Officers shall start at Grade 2 of the corresponding rankin this Compensation Scheme and those of incumbents of and new appointees to Career Executive Service positions who are not Career Executive Service Officers shall start at Grade 1of the corresponding rank: Provided, That in the case of said incumbents who are not members of the Career Executive Service, subsequent salary increases and/or rank promotions may be granted only after satisfactory completion of the Career Executive Service Development Program and compliance with such requirements as the Board shall set: Provided, further, That nothing herein stated shall reduce any salary received by any incumbent of any Career Executive Service position as a consequence of the implementation of the herein Compensation Scheme, except that the salary of his successor shall be in conformity with this Scheme. (emphasis and underscoring supplied) On July 3, 1991, the Office of the President issued Memorandum Order No. 372, "MODIFYING THE RANKING STRUCTURE AND SALARY SCHEDULE IN THE CAREER EXECUTIVE SERVICE (CES)," the relevant sections of which provide: SECTION 1. The ranking structure and salary schedule in the Career Executive Service (CES) are hereby modified to read as follows:
SECTION 2. The Career Executive Service Board shall establish the mechanics for the classification of members of the CES in accordance with the above ranking structure and shall issue the corresponding rules and regulations. SECTION 3. All issuances, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Memorandum Order are hereby repealed. (underscoring supplied) On October 21, 1994, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) issued Resolution No. 94-5840providing that a Career Executive Service Officer (CESO) is entitled to the second step of the salary grade of his rank.1cralaw The Career Executive Service Board (CESB) later issued, on April 12, 1996, Resolution No. 129stating that:
Still later, the CESB issued, on May 29, 1996, Circular No. 12 laying down guidelines on the grant of a one-step adjustment in the salary of CESOs. The applicable provisions of the Circular state:
Republic Act (RA) No. 8282, otherwise known as the Social Security Act of 1997, was then enacted, Section 3(c)4cralaw of which exempted respondent Social Security System (SSS) from the application of RA No. 6758, "The Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989" or the Salary Standardization Law. The Social Security Commission (SSC) thus issued, on July 24, 1997, Resolution No. 523 prescribing the new SSS Salary Structure and Benefits Package. In 1999, petitioners-SSS employees were appointed and/or promoted to CESO ranks. On June 20, 2001, the SSC approved Resolution No. 483 appropriating funds for the grant of a one-step salary increment to nine SSS CESOs. Shortly thereafter, however, or on June 25, 2001, the Office of the President issued Memorandum Order No. 20, which reads in relevant part:
The corporate auditor of the Commission on Audit thus advised the President of the SSS, by Memorandum dated June 29, 2001, against the implementation of a one-step salary increment for SSS CESOs in view of Memorandum Order No. 20 of the President. The Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) likewise issued, on August 13, 2001, an opinion, that unless approved by the Office of the President, a one-step salary increment for SSS CESOs may not be implemented.5cralaw Acting under the OGCC's advice, the SSS recommended, on April 9, 2002, to the Office of the President the approval of a one-step salary adjustment for SSS CESOs. On even date, the Department of Budget and Management, to which the Office of the President referred the SSS recommendation, declared:
Petitioners, however, made repeated requests to the SSS management for the release of the one-step salary adjustment, but to no avail, drawing them to file, on January 9, 2004, a petition7cralaw for mandamus before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, praying that the SSS be ordered to implement the one-step salary increment due them by virtue of their CESO rank. By Decision of August 30, 2004,8cralaw Branch 226 of the Quezon City RTC dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals, by Decision of December 29, 2005,9cralaw affirmed the dismissal, hence, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari .10cralaw The petition is bereft of merit. For mandamus to issue, it is essential that the person petitioning for it has a clear legal right to the claim sought.11cralaw It will not issue to enforce a right, or to compel compliance with a duty, which is questionable or over which a substantial doubt exists.12cralaw Thus, unless the right to the relief sought is unclouded, it will be denied. The Court gathers that the intention of the law is to maintain, under the Modified Ranking Structure and Salary Schedule in the CES, the distinction between CESOs and non-CESOs established by Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 847. The maintenance of the distinct status given to CESOs who, prior to the issuance of CSC Resolution No. 94-5840 on October 21, 1994, were already receiving at least the second step of the salary grade of their rank due to longevity or merit is the rationale behind the one-step salary increment granted by Resolution No. 129.13cralaw Without the increment, a CESO who, due to longevity or merit, is already receiving the second step of the salary grade of his rank as of the effectivity of CSC Resolution No. 94-5840, would be no different from a similarly situated non-CESO within the same salary grade. Thus, even if the one-step salary increment granted by CESB Circular No. 12 were not covered by the suspension of the grant in Memorandum Order No. 20, petitioners must nevertheless satisfy the conditions established by CESB Circular No. 12 to entitle them to the one-step salary increment. Petitioners must thus establish that when they were appointed or promoted to CESO ranks in 1999, they were already receiving the second step of the salary grade of their ranks. Petitioners failed to do so, however. Besides, as the SSS points out,14cralaw CESB Circular No. 12 is unenforceable. Per the certification issued by the Office of the National Register (ONAR) of the University of the Philippines Law Center dated March 30, 2004,15cralaw the CESB failed to file three copies of CESB Circular No. 12 with the ONAR. Sections 3 and 4 of Chapter 2, Book VII of Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, provide:
As CESB Circular No. 12 has not been filed with the ONAR, it has yet to take effect. It is, therefore, unenforceable.16cralaw WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. SO ORDERED. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES WE CONCUR: REYNATO S. PUNO
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. C E R T I F I C A T I O N Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. REYNATO S. PUNO Endnotes:
|
|