Judicial Longevity Pay: Crediting Prior Government Service for Justices and Judges

The Supreme Court's 2019 resolution in Re: Request of Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad for Salary Adjustment Due to Longevity of Service (A.M. No. 13-05-04-SC) settled an important question for members of the Judiciary: can years spent in certain executive positions—particularly in the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)—be counted toward the longevity pay of a justice or judge? The Court answered yes, building on its earlier rulings and clarifying that service in positions given judicial rank by law may be credited for longevity pay purposes.

The Case of Justice Abad

Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad served the government continuously from 1969 to 1986, holding positions as Technical Assistant at the Supreme Court, then as Solicitor, Solicitor II through V, and finally Assistant Solicitor General at the OSG. After a period in private practice, he was appointed Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in 2009 and served until his mandatory retirement in 2014—a tenure of four years, eight months, and sixteen days, just short of the five years required to qualify for longevity pay.

Justice Abad requested that his OSG service be credited toward his longevity pay. The Office of Administrative Services and the Fiscal Management and Budget Office both recommended that his OSG years be considered judicial service for retirement purposes only, not for salary adjustment during his incumbency.

The Legal Framework

The governing provision is the longevity pay rule under the Judiciary Reorganization Act (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129), in relation to Presidential Decree No. 1927, which grants monthly longevity pay equivalent to five percent of basic pay for each five years of continuous, efficient, and meritorious service rendered in the judiciary. The exact statutory text of this provision is not available in the ASG law library, but the rule as described in the decision is the basis for the Court's analysis.

The key question was whether service in the OSG—an executive department office—could be considered "service rendered in the judiciary" for this purpose.

The Court's Ruling

The Court granted Justice Abad's request, holding that his entire OSG service should be included in the computation of his longevity pay "not only for his retirement but for all intents and purposes."

The Court traced a long history of laws aligning the ranks, qualifications, and salaries of OSG lawyers with their judicial counterparts. As early as 1916, the Administrative Code required the same qualifications for Solicitor-General as for Judges of Courts of First Instance. Presidential Decree No. 1347 (1978) extended to the Solicitor General the same rank and privileges as the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals, and to Assistant Solicitors General the rank of Court of First Instance Judges. Republic Act No. 9417 (2007) further elevated Assistant Solicitors General to the rank of Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals.

The Court also relied on its earlier resolution in the consolidated cases of CA Justices Veloso, Gacutan, and Salazar-Fernando (A.M. Nos. 12-8-07-CA, 12-9-5-SC, and 13-02-07-SC), particularly the July 26, 2016 resolution granting Justice Gacutan's motion for reconsideration. In that ruling, the Court adopted the view that longevity pay is part of salary, not merely rank, and that officials granted by law the same rank and salary as judicial counterparts should enjoy the corresponding longevity pay benefits.

The Court further cited Re: Request of Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga (A.M. No. 11-10-7-SC), which clarified that the retroactivity clause in Republic Act No. 10071—granting judicial rank to prosecutors—could benefit former prosecutors who later joined the Judiciary.

The Dissenting View

Justice Leonen dissented, arguing that longevity pay requires actual service in the Judiciary. He contended that laws aligning ranks and salaries do not extend longevity pay itself, and that crediting executive service would require the government to pay for work not rendered in the Judiciary—contradicting the purpose of rewarding loyal service on the Bench.

Practical Takeaways

• Prior OSG service counts. Justices and judges who previously served in the OSG in positions given judicial rank by law may have those years credited toward longevity pay.
• The rule extends beyond the OSG. The same principle applies to other positions granted judicial rank by statute, such as NLRC Commissioners (under Republic Act No. 9347) and prosecutors in the National Prosecution Service (under Republic Act No. 10071).
• Retroactivity matters. Laws granting judicial rank may have retroactive provisions, as Republic Act No. 10071 does, allowing even those who served before the law's effectivity to benefit.
• Longevity pay is part of salary. The Court treats longevity pay as part of a justice's or judge's total salary, not merely a rank-based privilege.
• Continuity of service remains important. Breaks in government service may still affect eligibility, as seen in the denial of Justice Salazar-Fernando's request regarding her COMELEC service.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.