SC: Law on salary adjustments valid

The Supreme Court has upheld a ruling of the Court of Appeals declaring a Cebu City ordinance that provided appropriations for the salary adjustments of department heads and assistant department heads valid.

In its March 14 decision, the High Tribunal said the Department of Budget and Management has erred in asserting that City Ordinance No. 1468 upgraded the salary grades of the city's department heads and assistant department heads because the city ordinance was an appropriation ordinance in nature.

"Considering that Ordinance No. 1468 is only an appropriation ordinance, petitioners erred in asserting that the ordinance upgrades the position of Cebu City Government Department Head from Salary Grade 26 to Salary Grade 27, and the position of Cebu City Government Assistant Department Head from Salary Grade 24 to Salary Grade 25. In this case, the bases for the correct salary grades of all positions in the local government unit are provided for by Joint Commission Circular No. 37 dated September 30, 1989, Joint Commission Circular No. 39 dated October 2, 1990 and Bulletin No. 10 dated March 7, 1991," the Supreme Court said.

The Supreme Court granted DBM's petition to clarify a CA ruling that declared as valid City Ordinance No. 1468. DBM had argued that the declaration of validity of the ordinance conflicted with the Bulletin No. 10 of the Joint Commission on Local Government Personnel Administration, which has classified Cebu City only as a highly urbanized city, thus, its department heads and assistant department heads should only have Salary Grade 26 and Salary Grade 24 respectively.

DBM had claimed Ordinance No. 1468 has upgraded the salary of assistant department heads from Salary Grade 24 to Salary Grade 25 and department heads from Salary Grade 26 to Salary Grade 27.

It also said Ordinance No. 1468 would cover salary differentials and adjustments of the salaries of the city officials and employees in the full implementation of a seventh-step increase (from second step to eighth step) of their salary schedule for the period of 1993, contrary to the provisions of DBM Regional Memorandum Circular No. 92-1.

Regional Memorandum Circular No. 92-1, dated March 23, 1992, disallowed the granting on a full implementation ("one-shot" affair) basis of the eighth step of the Salary Schedule of Joint Circular No. 36, since it allegedly violated Republic Act 6758 and CSC-DBM Joint Circular No. 1 mandating that the grant of step increments must be based on merit and/or length of service.

Regional Memorandum Circular No. 92-1 has enjoined local government units, including Cebu City, from granting step increments/salary increases that are not in accordance with CSC-DBM Joint Circular No. 1, and further ordered that any salary increase and excess received should be returned.

In clarifying the issues raised by DBM, the Supreme Court said City Ordinance 1468, approved on August 9, 1993, merely provided for appropriations for the salary adjustments of department heads and assistant department heads to conform to the correct position titles under Joint Commission Circular No. 37 and 39, which took effect on July 1, 1989.

The Supreme Court said it is clearly stated that the salary adjustments of department heads and assistant department heads should conform to the correct position titles under Joint Commission Circular Nos. 37 and 39. Bulletin No. 10, on the other hand, provides the guidelines for the proper implementation of the joint commission circulars.

In this case, the Supreme Court said, the joint commission circulars should be read together with Bulletin No. 10 in determining the correct salary grades of the city's department and assistant department heads, with the city's classification as a highly urbanized city, an area where DBM said to have erred. - Joeberth M. Ocao/LPM