Letter of Associate Justice Reynato S.

Puno Facts: Petitioner was first appointed Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals (CA) on June 20 1980 taking his oath on November 29 1982. On January 17 1983, the CA was reorganized into the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) pursuant to BP 129 An Act reorganizing the Judiciary which appointed petitioner as an appellate justice in the IAC, to which he accepted ceasing him to be a member of the Judiciary. After the EDSA revolution in February 1986 brought the reorganization of the entire government including the IAC, which was issued through EO No. 33 by President Aquino exercising his legislative powers. The Screening Committee then recommended the return of petitioner as associate justice of the new CA assigning him to be ranked number eleven (11), however when the appointments were signed his ranked changed to number twentysix (26). Petitioner now seeks the correction claiming that his transfer from Associate Justice to a ministry of justice and now his recent reappointment did not adversely affect his ranking in the CA. The Court en banc granted the correction of his seniority, which was challenged via motion for reconsideration by Associate Justices Campos and Javellana contending that the present CA is a new court, neither can petitioner claim that he was returning to a former court for the courts where he had previously been appointed has already ceased to exist. They also further allege that petitioner submitted the request to the wrong party as it was supposed to be addressed to the President, and since his request was not approved, the Supreme Court should respect the Presidents decision. Issue: W/N the CA is a new court such that it would negate any claim to precedence or seniority enjoyed by petitioner? W/N the CA is merely a continuation of the CA and IAC? Held: The present CA is a new entity, different and distinct from the CA or the IAC existing prior to EO No. 33 for it was created in the wake of the massive reorganization launched by the revolutionary government. At the time of the issuance of EO No. 33, President Aquino was still exercising the powers of a revolutionary government, encompassing both executive and legislative powers, such that she could, if she desired, amend, modify or repeal any part of BP 129 or her own EO No. 33.