Joson vs Umali, G.R. No.

210220-21 April 6, 2016

Issue: Is a consultant a public officer?

Ruling: No. All public officers and employees from the highest to the lowest rank are required to take an
oath of office which marks their assumption to duty. It is well-settled that on oath of office is a qualifying
requirement for public office, a prerequisite to the full investiture of the office. Ferdinand was not
required to take an oath of office because he rendered consultancy services for the provincial
government not by virtue of an appointment or election to a specific public office or position but by a
contractual engagement.

Estrellado vs David G.R. No. 184288 Feb 16, 2016

Issue: Does the next-in-rank status of a government employee a guarantee to one’s fitness to the
position aspired for?

Ruling: No. The next-in-rank status of a government employee is not a guarantee to one's fitness to the
position aspired for, and the applicant must go through the rigors of a screening and selection process as
determined and conducted by a department or agency, subject only to the standards and guidelines set
by the Civil Service Commission (CSC). This is in keeping with the ideal of promoting through

Zoleta vs People G.R. No. 185224 July 29, 2015

Issue: In view of the citizenship issue of Justice Ong, can the decision of the Sandiganbayan be
invalidated or should Justice Ong be considered a de facto officer?

Ruling: A de facto officer. Although the Court En Banc held that Justice Ong was a natural-born citizen,
even without this ruling, he is still considered a de facto officer during the period of his incumbency as a
Sandiganbayan Associate Justice. A de facto officer is one who is in possession of an office and who
openly exercises its functions under color of an appointment or election, even though such appointment
or election may be irregular. It is likewise defined as one who is in possession of an office, and is
discharging its duties under color of authority, by which is meant authority derived from an
appointment, however irregular or informal, so that the incumbent be not a mere volunteer.

IN Re: Justice Veloso, A.M. No. 12-8-07-CA, June 16, 2015

Issue: What is a longevity pay as compared to salary? Can judges and justices be granted longevity pay
for services rendered outside the judiciary?

Ruling: “Salary” and longevity pay: (1) are treated under different sections of BP 129; (2) have different
bases for determination or computation; and (3) have different reasons for the payment or grant.
“Salary” under Section 41 entitles the official or employee to its receipt from day one (or the first day of
the first month) of his service. Its basis or reason for payment is the actual performance of service or
assigned duties, without regard to the months or years the recipient has been rendering the service.
Salary is a fixed amount depending on which salary grade an employee belongs. On the other hand,
payment of longevity pay is premised on a continued, efficient, and meritorious service: (1) in the
Judiciary; and (2) of at least five years. Long and continued service in the Judiciary is the basis and
reason for the payment of longevity pay, amount of longevity pay to which a recipient shall be entitled
is not a fixed amount it is a percentage of the recipient’s monthly basic pay which, at the least, is
equivalent to 5%

Ruling: No. Section 42 of B.P. Blg. 129 is clear: a judge or justice shall be paid a monthly longevity pay
equivalent to 5% of the monthly basic pay for each five years of continuous, efficient, and
meritorious service rendered in the Judiciary. Service in the NLRC, even with the rank of a CA Justice, is
not service with the Judiciary for purposes of longevity pay.