Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LUCIANO VELOSO v. COA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 185812 2015-01-13	MARITIME INDUSTRY AUTHORITY v. COA LEONEN, J.
Further, before public funds may be disbursed for salaries and benefits to government officers and employees, it must be shown that these are commensurate to the services rendered and necessary or relevant to the functions of the office. "Additional allowances and benefits must be shown to be necessary or relevant to the fulfillment of the official duties and functions of the government officers and employees."[114]
	GR No. 209219 2014-12-02	BASES CONVERSION v. COA CHAIRPERSON MA. GRACIA M. PULIDO-TAN REYES, J.
Given the foregoing, COA Decision No. 2013-109 is sustained. As the Court stressed in Veloso v. Commission on Audit:[33]
	GR No. 199439 2014-04-22	CITY OF GENERAL SANTOS v. COA LEONEN, J.
It is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of administrative authorities, especially one which is constitutionally-created not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers but also for their presumed expertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce. Findings of administrative agencies are accorded not only respect but also finality when the decision and order are not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion. It is only when the COA has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, that this Court entertains a petition questioning its rulings. There is grave abuse of discretion when there is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law as when the judgment rendered is not based on law and evidence but on caprice, whim and despotism.[30] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
	GR No. 204869 2014-03-11	TECHNICAL EDUCATION v. COA CARPIO, J.
Only when COA acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, may the Court grant a petition assailing COA's actions. There is grave abuse of discretion when there is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law as when the judgment rendered is not based on law and evidence but on caprice, whim and despotism.[15]
	GR No. 195640 2012-12-04	SUGAR REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION v. ENCARNACION B. TORMON PERALTA, J.
All told, we find no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the COA in rendering its assailed decision. There is grave abuse of discretion when there is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law as when the judgment rendered is not based on law and evidence but on caprice, whim and despotism,[26] which is wanting in this case.
	GR No. 182069 2012-07-03	ARNOLD D. VICENCIO v. REYNALDO A. VILLAR SERENO, J.
In sum, the COA's assailed Decision was made in faithful compliance with its mandate and in judicious exercise of its general audit power as conferred on it by the Constitution[26] The COA was merely fulfilling its mandate in observing the policy that government funds and property should be fully protected and conserved; and that irregular, unnecessary, excessive or extravagant expenditures or uses of such funds and property should be prevented.[27] Thus, no grave abuse of discretion may be imputed to the COA.