[A.M.
No. 99-5-08-SC. January 15, 2002]
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