Re: Memorandum from Leonardo-De Castro
MODIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro submitted a Memorandum dated July 10, 2017, highlighting the long-standing vacancies in key Supreme Court positions, specifically the Deputy Clerk of Court and Assistant Court Administrators. She also questioned the appointment of Atty. Brenda Jay Angeles-Mendoza as the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) Chief of Office for the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC). Justice Leonardo-De Castro argued that Atty. Mendoza's appointment was made by the Chief Justice and the two most senior Associate Justices (Division Chairpersons) instead of the Court En Banc, and that it lacked a formal recommendation from the PHILJA Board of Trustees (BOT) as required by Administrative Order No. 33-2008. Procedural History: Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno responded by asserting that Atty. Mendoza's appointment was validly delegated to the Division Chairpersons under A.M. No. 99-12-08-SC (Revised) and the Supreme Court Human Resource Manual (SC HR Manual). She contended that the term "personnel" encompassed third-level positions and that a formal Board Resolution was not a prerequisite if a recommendation from the PHILJA Chancellor was secured. Subsequently, PHILJA officials and Atty. Mendoza were required to submit memoranda detailing the selection process and the validity of the appointment. The Petition: The Court treated the matter as an administrative review concerning the scope of the En Banc's appointive power. During the pendency of these proceedings, Atty. Mendoza tendered her resignation effective February 26, 2018, to accept a position with an international organization. Consequently, the Court was tasked with clarifying the rules on the delegation of appointing power and determining if the issue regarding Atty. Mendoza's specific appointment had become moot.
Issue(s)
Whether the power to appoint high-ranking judicial officials (Salary Grade 29 and above) is validly delegated to the Division Chairpersons. Whether the appointment of Atty. Brenda Jay Angeles-Mendoza as PHILJA Chief of Office for the PMC was valid.
Ruling
The Court RESOLVED to: (1) ACCEPT the resignation of Atty. Brenda Jay Angeles-Mendoza; (2) DECLARE the issue of her appointment's validity moot and academic; (3) AMEND the rules on appointment to clarify that the delegation to Division Chairpersons does NOT include positions with Salary Grade 29 and higher or those with judicial rank; and (4) INSTRUCT the PHILJA Board of Trustees to commence a new selection process for the PMC Chief of Office.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the power of appointment is a constitutional prerogative of the Supreme Court En Banc under Article VIII, Section 5(6). While the Court previously issued A.M. No. 99-12-08-SC (Revised) to delegate the appointment of 'personnel' to Division Chairpersons, this delegation must be interpreted narrowly. The Court noted that despite the broad language of the delegation, established practice showed that high-ranking positions like the Court Administrator, Deputy Court Administrators, and PHILJA executive officials continued to be appointed by the En Banc. Any ambiguity in the delegation of constitutional powers must be resolved in favor of non-delegation to prevent the abdication of the Court's collective judgment. Consequently, the Court clarified that all positions with Salary Grade (SG) 29 and higher, or those carrying judicial rank, are excluded from the delegated authority and must be filled by the En Banc. This ensures that the most critical policy-determining and technical positions are vetted by the entire collegial body. On Issue 2: Regarding the specific appointment of Atty. Mendoza, the Court found that the position of PHILJA Chief of Office for the PMC carries a Salary Grade of 30 and the rank of an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals. Under Administrative Order No. 33-2008, the appointment requires a 'recommendation of PHILJA,' which the Court interpreted as a formal resolution from the PHILJA Board of Trustees (BOT). In Atty. Mendoza's case, the recommendation was made by the PHILJA Chancellor following a screening panel, but no formal BOT Resolution was issued or transmitted to the En Banc. The Court emphasized that the BOT, as the governing body of PHILJA, must act collectively. However, because Atty. Mendoza resigned before the Court could finalize its deliberation, the challenge to her specific appointment became moot and academic. The Court accepted her resignation with regrets and clarified that the proceedings did not reflect on her personal qualifications or competence.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court is a collegial body where each Justice has approximately equal power and authority, acting on the basis of consensus or majority rule. Under Article VIII, Section 5(6) of the 1987 Constitution, the power to appoint judicial officials and employees belongs to the Court En Banc. While A.M. No. 99-12-08-SC (Revised) delegated the appointment of 'personnel' to Division Chairpersons, this delegation is strictly construed. It excludes positions with Salary Grade 29 and higher, as well as those with judicial rank, which must remain within the exclusive appointive prerogative of the En Banc to ensure institutional integrity and accountability.