RE:  REQUEST OF FORMER PRESIDING JUDGE ALEX Z. REYES OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS FOR THE INCLUSION OF HIS LEAVE CREDITS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ARMED FORCES AND THE EXCLUSION OF …

In his letter-request dated December 19, 1991, former Presiding
Court of Tax Appeals Judge Alex Z. Reyes asks for a reconsideration and
recomputation of his accumulated vacation and sick leave credits. In particular, Judge Reyes requests the
following:

1. The inclusion of 57.625 days vacation leave and 57.625 days
sick leave which he earned for services with the Armed Forces of the
Philippines from 1941 to 1946, and

2. The exclusion of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays from his
total accredited vacation and sick leaves of 322 days for the period beginning
February 17, 1954 to July 19, 1980, during which he was with the Department of
Finance.

Judge Reyes was compulsorily retired on November 24, 1991, with
37 years, 9 months and 7 days in the government service, the last 11 years, 3 months and 23 days of which were
continuously rendered in the judiciary. His record shows a gap in his government service of seven years, from
December 1946 to February 16, 1954.

In processing the terminal leave application of Judge Reyes, the
Supreme Court Administrative Office did not include Judge Reyes’ accumulated
leave credits earned for services with the AFP, by virtue of the application of
a 1st Indorsement dated May 2, 1957 of the then Bureau of Civil Service,
which provides:

“When transfer of leave credit
not allowed – The transfer of leave credit is allowed only when
there is no gap in the service of the officer or employee concerned.”

In his request for reconsideration, Judge Reyes cites Memorandum
Circular No. 54 of the Office of the President dated March 24, 1988, as
restated in Civil Service Commission Circular No. 10, Series of 1988 which
provides:

“PRESCRIBING
GUIDELINES ON THE COMPUTATION

OF CREDITABLE
VACATION AND SICK LEAVES

WHEREAS, Executive Order (EO) No. 1077, dated January 9, 1986,
provides under Section 1 thereof that any officer or employee of the government
who retires or voluntarily resigns or is separated from the service through no
fault of his own and whose leave benefits are not covered by any special law,
shall be entitled to the commutation of all the accumulated vacation and/or
sick leave to his credit, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays without
limitation as to the number of days of vacation and sick leave that he may have
accumulated.

WHEREAS, Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular (MC)
No. 4, series of 1986, prescribing guidelines on the implementation of EO No.
1077, provides that the ‘reckoning date for crediting accumulated leave in
excess of 300 days shall start on October 12, 1981 [and that] leave credits in
excess of 300 days before this date shall be deemed forfeited;’ and

WHEREAS, On February 28, 1988, the CSC recommended the issuance by
this Office of a memorandum circular specifying the coverage and applicability
of EO No. 1077, particularly the reckoning date for crediting accumulated leave
in excess of three hundred (300) days, and interposed no objection if the
reckoning date of October 12, 1981, as stated in CSC MO No. 4, is modified or
deleted.

Accordingly, and for the guidance of all concerned, the computation
of leave credits shall be as follows:

Any officer/employee of the government who retires/voluntarily
resigns/is separated from the service through no fault of his/her own, and who
is not otherwise covered by special law,
shall be entitled to the commutation of all his/her leave credits exclusive of
Saturdays/Sundays/holidays without limitation and regardless
of the period when the credits were
earned; provided that the leave privileges under EO No. 1077 as herein
outlined may be availed of only by concerned officers/employees in the service
as of the effectivity thereof on January 9, 1986.

Strict compliance hereto is enjoined.

By authority of the President:

(SGD.) CATALINO
MACARAIG, JR.

Executive Secretary

Manila, March 24,
1988″ (Emphasis supplied)

From a consideration of the foregoing, it is evident that said
Memorandum Circular No. 54 supersedes the 1957 indorsement of the Bureau of
Civil Service. Under said Circular,
government officers and employees are now entitled to the commutation of all
leave credits exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays without limitation
and regardless of the period when the credits were earned, provided the
claimant was in the service as of January 9, 1986.

The issue which then arises is whether or not the phrase
“without limitation and regardless of the period when the credits were
earned” is applicable to the judiciary. Such phrase may be so applicable on the condition provided in the
circular itself, that the judiciary is “not otherwise covered by special
law.”

The law governing leave credits of municipal judges began with RA No. 843 dated May 5, 1953 which
provided for vacation and sick leave, thereby adding a new section to the
Judiciary Act of 1948. RA No. 843 was subsequently
amended by R.A. No. 3086 dated June 17, 1961, Section 3 of which provides as
follows:

“SEC. 3. Section
ninety-eight-A of the same Act, as amended, is further amended to read as
follows:

‘SEC. 98-A. Vacation
and sick leaves of judges of municipal
courts and justices of the peace. Judges of municipal courts and justices of
the peace shall be entitled annually to fifteen days vacation and fifteen days
sick leaves with pay and in the computation thereof Sundays and holidays shall be
excluded and such leave privileges shall be cumulated but not to exceed three
hundred days.’”

The above-quoted provision of R.A. No. 3086 was not reproduced in
B.P. No. 129, otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980,
which expressly repealed the Judiciary Act of 1948.

As to judges of courts of first instance, the law governing their
leave credits was initially section 271 of the Administrative Code relative to
vacation leave. This law was amended by
R.A. No. 1399 dated September 9, 1955, which in turn was amended by R.A. No.
1802 dated June 22, 1957. R.A. No. 1802
was subsequently amended by R.A. No. 4307 dated June 19, 1965. R.A. No. 4307 was superseded by the Revised
Administrative Code (P.D. No. 1587) which, however, was never published, and
was subsequently expressly repealed by the 1987 Administrative Code. The 1987 Administrative Code does not
provide for leaves of judges nor does it expressly repeal section 271 of the
old Administrative Code. R.A. No. 4307,
then is still valid law. It provides as follows:

“AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY ONE OF THE
REVISED ADMINSTRATIVE CODE, AS LAST AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED ONE
THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWO, RELATIVE TO VACATION LEAVE OF JUDGES OF FIRST
INSTANCE.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
Philippines in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Section two
hundred seventy one of Act Numbered Two thousand seven hundred eleven, as last
amended by Republic Act Numbered One thousand eight hundred two, is hereby
further amended to read as follows:

‘SECTION 271. Leave of
absence of Judges, First Instance. – During the yearly court vacation, the
judges of first instance not specially assigned to vacation duty shall be upon
vacation leave. In case of those who
are assigned to vacation duty, they shall be entitled to vacation leave at any
subsequent time for the same number of days that they spend on vacation duty
but not exceeding two months per year, one month of said leave being
cumulative.’

SECTION 2. This Act shall
take effect upon its approval.

Approved, June 19, 1965.”

Said law, therefore, provides that judges of first instance not
specially assigned to vacation duty shall be on vacation leave while those on
vacation duty shall be entitled to vacation leave at any subsequent time for
the same number of days that they spend on vacation duty. The only
limitation is that the judge’s entitlement to vacation leave shall not exceed
two months per year, one month of which is cumulative.

There is nothing in the above law which governs the specific
issue before this Court. R.A. No. 4307
pertains to vacation leaves earned due to vacation duty and it does not govern
the commutation of leave credits earned. Said R.A. cannot be considered the special law contemplated by
Memorandum Circular No. 54, which would effectively exclude the judiciary from
the operation of Memorandum Circular No. 54.

It must be noted that said Memorandum Circular was reproduced in
section 26 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292
and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws published in the Philippine Star on
January 15, 1992, and which took effect 30 days after the completion of its
publication. Section 26 provides:

“SEC. 26. Any
officer/employee of the government who retires, voluntarily resigns or is
separated from the service through no fault of his own, and who is not
otherwise covered by special law, shall be entitled to the commutation of all
his leave credits exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays without
limitation and regardless of the period when the credits were earned; Provided,
That the unlimited leave privileges may be availed of only by concerned
officers/employees who are in the service as of January 9, 1986, the date of
effectivity of E.O. No. 1077 or thereafter.”

In Section 11 of the Omnibus Rules it is categorically stated
that leave credits of the judiciary are covered by special laws. Section 11 of said Omnibus Rules provides as
follows:

“SEC. 11. Leave
credits of Justices of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and
Sandiganbayan, Judges of Regional Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts,
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Court of Tax Appeals and
Shari’a Circuit Courts, Heads of Executive Departments, Heads of Departments,
Undersecretaries, Chairman and Commissioners of Constitutional Commissions,
Filipino Officers and Employees in the Foreign Service and other officials and
employees are covered by special laws. Hence, justices and other
government officials covered by special laws
should promulgate their own implementing rules
relative thereto: Provided;
That said rules should not go beyond
what the special law provides. Finally, said implementing rules should be
submitted to the Civil Service Commission for record purposes.” (Emphasis
supplied)

The special laws provide the boundaries by which the implementing
rules and regulations to be promulgated by “justices and other government
officials covered by special law” are to be limited. Again, there is no special law governing the
specific issue addressed by Memorandum Circular No. 54 and Section 26 of the
Omnibus Rules. And absent any
implementing rules and regulations yet promulgated, the general provision must
be applied there being no reason to discriminate against the judiciary and
deprive judges of the benefits of commutation without limitation and regardless
of the period when the credits were earned. In other words, there is no special law governing the commutation of
leave credits of Judges and, therefore, they are entitled to benefits under
Memorandum Circular No. 54.

The second issue on the non-exclusion of Saturdays, Sundays, and
holidays is governed by the same principle. As there is likewise no special law on the specific issue, Memorandum
Circular No. 54 must be applied. And
even assuming that there is such a special law, it cannot provide for lesser
privileges or non-application of general laws to work a disadvantage against
Judges. In fact, R.A. 3086 quoted
above, now no longer in force, had excluded Sundays and holidays from the therein
computation of vacation and sick leaves of municipal court judges and the then
justices of the peace.

Statutes and administrative rules governing the commutation of
leave benefits of judges must be interpreted in the light of the special
protections given by the Constitution to the judiciary. In Bengzon v. Drilon,
(G.R. No. 103524) and In Re Request of Retired
Justices (A.M. No. 91-8-225-CA) jointly decided on April 15, 1992, this
Court emphasized:

“The provisions regarding retirement pensions of Justices
arise from the package of protections given by the Constitution to guarantee
and preserve the independence of the Judiciary.

The Constitution expressly vests the power of judicial review in
this Court. Any institution given the
power to declare, in proper cases, that acts of both the President and Congress
are unconstitutional needs a high degree of independence in the exercise of its
functions. Our jurisdiction may not be
reduced by Congress. Neither may it be
increased without our advice and concurrence. Justices may not be removed until they reach the reason age 70 except
through impeachment. All courts and
court personnel are under the administrative supervision of the Supreme
Court. The President may not appoint
any Judge or Justices unless he or she has been nominated by the Judicial and
Bar Council which, in turn, is under the Supreme Court’s supervision. Our salaries may not be decreased during our
continuance in office. We cannot be
designated to any agency performing administrative or quasi-judicial
functions. We are specifically given
fiscal autonomy. The Judiciary is not
only independent of, but also co-equal and coordinate with the Executive and
Legislative Departments. (Article VIII
and Section 30, Article VI, Constitution).”

In the interpretation of statutes or rules governing the benefits
of those who retire from the government service, a construction is to be sought
which, in proscribing discrimination against Judges, maintains the independence
of the Judiciary.

In Borromeo v. Civil Service Commission
(199 SCRA 911, [1991]), this Court deemed it necessary to impose a cut-off date
for claims for terminal leave differentials which would have arisen from the
ruling, upon practical considerations and budgetary constraints.

In Re: Request
of Atty. Bernardo Zialcita (190 SCRA 851 [l990]),
this Court likewise set a cut-off date for invoking the benefits of that
ruling, noting the mischief that an open-ended rule would bring. Upon the same considerations, this Court now
holds that Memorandum Circular No. 54 of the Office of the President shall
apply in computing the creditable vacation and sick leave benefits of the
members of the Judiciary who retired or shall retire on or after March 24,
1988, the date of said Memorandum Circular.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the COURT RESOLVED to:

(1) GRANT the request of Judge Alex Z. Reyes for:

(a)     The inclusion of
57.625 days vacation leave and 57.625 days sick leave earned for services with
the Armed Forces of the Philippines from 1941 to 1946 in his accumulated leave
credits.

(b)     The exclusion of
Saturdays, Sundays and holidays from the total of his accredited vacation and
sick leaves of 322 days for the period beginning February 17, 1954 to July 19,
1980 during which period Judge Reyes was with the Department of Finance; and

(2) DECLARE that Memorandum Circular No. 54 of the Office of the
President dated March 24, 1988 shall apply in the computation of the creditable
vacation and leave credits of members the judiciary who retired or shall retire
on or after March 24, 1988, the date of said Memorandum Circular.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Grino-Aquino,
Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, and Campos, Jr., JJ., concur.