The instant administrative matter arose from a letter-request dated February 15, 1999 jointly signed by the Clerk of Court, Assistant Clerk of Court, Division Clerks of Court, and the Court Reporter, all of the Court of Appeals (CA), reiterating the previous request of former Presiding Justice Jorge S. Imperial made on January 15, 1996, for the upgrading of the ranks, salaries, and privileges of said CA officials, in line with this Court's Resolution dated June 20, 1995, prescribing new ranks, salaries, and privileges to some key positions in this Court. Said letter-request was endorsed by then CA Acting Presiding Justice Jesus M. Elbinias. Further, in a letter dated January 19, 1999 signed by former Acting Presiding Justice Jorge S. Imperial, a similar request for the upgrading of the following positions effective January 1, 1998 was made:

1. Division Chief : From Grade 24 to Grade 25
   
   
2. Assistant Chief : From Grade 22 to Grade 23
   
   
3. Court Attorney V : From Grade 26 to Grade 27
   
   
4. Court Attorney IV : From Grade 25 to Grade 26

The divisions subject of the aforesaid request are: Judicial Records Division, Accounting Division, Fiscal Management & Budget Division, Cash Division, Management & Audit Division, Human Resource Management Division, Supply & Property Management Division, Information & Statistical Data Division, Medical & Dental Services Division, Library Division, and General Services Division. This request was also in line with another Resolution of this Court dated November 21, 1995, reclassifying similar positions in this Court, with the corresponding increase in salary.

On February 10, 1999, Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo gave Justice Imperial's request favorable consideration and recommended the grant thereof, stating that the amount needed for the upgrading was modest and that funds were available.

Acting on the aforementioned recommendation, the Court En Banc, on June 8, 1999, resolved to refer the matter to Atty. Adelaida Cabe-Baumann, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief of the Office of Administrative Services, for comment and recommendation, within thirty days from receipt of the records thereof.

Pursuant to the above-stated resolution, Atty. Baumann, with Atty. Luz Puno concurring, recommends --

1. the DENIAL of the request to upgrade salary levels of, and/or the grant of judicial rank, to the CA Clerk of Court, the CA Assistant Clerk of Court, and the Court Reporter;
   
   
2. the DENIAL of the request to upgrade the salary levels (or salary grades [SG]) of the CA Court Attorneys V and Court Attorneys IV;
   
   
3. the GRANT of upgrading, reclassification, or judicial ranking, effective upon approval, to:

1. Division Clerks of Court (Executive Clerk of Court II) with SG 27 to CA Division Clerk of Court (Executive Clerk of Court III) with SG 28 with the rank, salary, and privileges of a Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) Judge;
   
   
2. Various position-titles of Chief of Division with SG 24 to the position of Chief Judicial Staff Officer with SG 25; and
   
   
3. Various position-titles of Assistant Chief of Division with SG 22 to the position of Supervising Judicial Staff Officer with SG 23.

The recommendations are well-taken.

As a consequence of the Judiciary's fiscal autonomy which is a guarantee of full flexibility to allocate and utilize our resources with the wisdom and dispatch that our needs may require (Bengzon vs. Drilon, 208 SCRA 133 ^[1992]), this Court opts to upgrade the ranks, salaries, and privileges of some of the positions in the Court of Appeals, in accordance with the proper hierarchical order of positions therein, and considering the availability of funds to cover the same.

Accordingly, a close perusal of the above-stated requests as well as their consequences compels us to take the following courses of action:

1. We grant the upgrading, reclassification, or request for judicial ranking, to:
   
   
   1. Division Clerks of Court (Executive Clerk of Court II) with SG 27 to CA Division Clerk of Court (Executive Clerk of Court III) with SG 28, with the rank, salary, and privileges of a Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) Judge. As explained by Atty. Baumann, said Division Clerks of Court should be placed at par, in rank and salary, with their counterparts in the Sandiganbayan who also have the rank, salary, and privileges of an MTC judge.
      
      
   2. Various position-titles of Chief of Division with SG 24 to the position of Chief Judicial Staff Officer with SG 25, considering that the chiefs of the divisions enumerated hereinabove, being under the supervision only of higher authorities such as the Clerk of Court and not of a particular office/service, exercise a wider latitude of judgment and even bear a greater burden of responsibilities. Too, the appointment of said Division Chiefs requires the possession by the appointee of a master's degree in addition to the requisite bachelor's degree, experience, and eligibility, whereas the position of Chief Judicial Staff Officer does not call for such qualification. Further, we favorably consider Atty. Baumann's observation that funding will not be a problem because only a minimal amount of money will be needed for the implementation thereof due to the small number of positions involved (11 chiefs of division and 11 assistant chiefs of division).
      
      
   3. Various position-titles of Assistant Chief of Division with SG 22 to the position of Supervising Judicial Staff Officer with SG 23, for the same reasons on modest and available funding stated above.
   
   
2. We, however, DENY the request for upgrading of salary levels of and/or the request for grant of judicial rank to the CA Clerk of Court, the CA Assistant Clerk of Court, and the Court Reporter, for the following reasons:
   
   
   1. The grant of salary upgrading of the CA Clerk of Court from SG 29 to SG 30 would make her at par with the salary grade of an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals and the SC Clerk of Court, an would also surpass the present salary level (SG 29) of her counterpart Clerk of Court of the Sandiganbayan.
      
      
   2. In the same vein, the upgrading of the salary level of the CA Assistant Clerk of Court from SG 28 to SG 29 would improperly put her salary at par with that of the Clerk of Court of the Sandiganbayan.
      
      
   3. The CA Reporter is already enjoying the salary level of SG 27 which is higher by two grades than the upgraded level (SG 25) of our own chiefs of divisions in this Court. Further, since this Court's own lawyer-assistant chiefs of offices with SG 28 have not been granted judicial ranking, there is no reason to grant a mere chief of a CA division (which is composed of only 18 employees) the requested rank and privileges. Lastly, the requested upgrading of salary level would put him/her at the same level as that of CA Division Clerks of Court whose salary level Atty. Baumann suitably recommends for upgrading to SG 28.
   
   
3. We like wise DENY the request for upgrading of salary levels of the CA Court Attorney V and Court Attorney IV. It is to be observed that the highest class of lawyer-positions, the Court Attorneys VI with SG 27, should be made exclusive to the lawyers of this Court owing to the prestige and honor due them as attorneys in the highest court of the land. In the case of Court Attorneys IV with SG 25, the reclassification of their position to the next higher class, i.e., Court Attorney V with SG 26, would certainly disturb the hierarchical order of lawyer-positions in the Court of Appeals considering that in the Reporters Division, the head is CA Reporter II with SG 27, assisted by CA Reporter I with SG 26. Under their supervision are four Court Attorneys IV with SG 25 and twelve non-lawyer personnel. If the positions of the four Court Attorneys IV are reclassified as Court Attorneys V with SG 26, they would have the same salary level as CA Reporter I (with SG 26) and would hence create distortion and dissonance in said hierarchical order of lawyer-positions.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition or request for the upgrading, classification, or for grant of judicial ranking to the positions in the Court of Appeals indicated herein, is hereby-

1. GRANTED as regards the following:
   
   
   1. Division Clerks of Court (Executive Clerk of Court II) with SG 27 to CA Division Clerk of Court (Executive Clerk of Court III) with SG 28, with the rank, salary, and privileges of a Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) Judge;
      
      
   2. Various position-titles of Chief of Division as enumerated hereinabove, with SG 24, to the position of Chief Judicial Staff Officer with SG 25; and
      
      
   3. Various position-titles of Assistant Chief of Division with SG 22 to the position of Supervising Judicial Staff Officer with SG 23.
   
   
2. DENIED as regards the following:

1. The CA Clerk of Court, the CA Assistant Clerk of Court, and the Court Reporter; and
   
   
2. Court Attorneys V and Court Attorneys IV.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.