Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AVELINA B. CONTE v. COA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 176549 2016-01-20	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. ROMEO C. CARRIEDO JARDELEZA, J.
In Conte v. Commission on Audit,[92] the sole issue of whether the Commission on Audit (COA) acted in grave abuse of discretion when it disallowed in audit therein petitioners' claim of financial assistance under Social Security System (SSS) Resolution No. 56 was presented before this Court. The COA disallowed the claims because the financial assistance under the challenged resolution is similar to a separate retirement plan which results in the increase of benefits beyond what is allowed under existing laws. This Court, sitting en banc, upheld the findings of the COA, and invalidated SSS Resolution No. 56 for being ultra vires, to wit:xxx Said Sec. 28 (b) as amended by RA 4968 in no uncertain terms bars the creation of any insurance or retirement plan — other than the GSIS — for government officers and employees, in order to prevent the undue and [iniquitous] proliferation of such plans. It is beyond cavil that Res. 56 contravenes the said provision of law and is therefore invalid, void and of no effect. xxx
	GR No. 175293 2014-07-23	CRISANTO F. CASTRO v. ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY BERSAMIN, J.
Worthy to stress is that retirement is of a different species from the reliefs awarded to an illegally dismissed employee. Retirement is a form of reward for an employee's loyalty and service to the employer, and is intended to help the employee enjoy the remaining years of his life, and to lessen the burden of worrying about his financial support or upkeep.[29] In contrast, the reliefs awarded to an illegally dismissed employee are in recognition of the continuing employer-employee relationship that has been severed by the employer without just or authorized cause, or without compliance with due process.
	GR No. 199439 2014-04-22	CITY OF GENERAL SANTOS v. COA LEONEN, J.
In Conte v. Commission on Audit,[70] this court discussed the purpose behind the proscription found in Section 28, paragraph (b), as amended. It was to address the need to prevent the proliferation of inequitous plans: x x x Sec. 28 (b) as amended by RA 4968 in no uncertain terms bars the creation of any insurance or retirement plan other than the GSIS for government officers and employees, in order to prevent the undue and inequitous proliferation of such plans. x x x. To ignore this and rule otherwise would be tantamount to permitting every other government office or agency to put up its own supplementary retirement benefit plan under the guise of such "financial assistance.[71]
	GR No. 162372 2011-10-19	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The fact that GSIS changed the name from "Employees Loyalty Incentive Plan" to "Retirement/Financial Plan" does not change its essential nature. A perusal of the plan shows that its purpose is not to encourage GSIS's employees to retire before their retirement age, but to augment the retirement benefits they would receive under our present laws. [62] Without a doubt, the GSIS RFP is a supplementary retirement plan, which is prohibited by the Teves Retirement Law.
	GR No. 167017 2009-06-22	SERAFIN CHENG v. SPS. VITTORIO AND MA. HELEN DONINI CORONA, J.
Petitioner, however, correctly argued that the principle of equity did not apply in this case. Equity, which has been aptly described as "justice outside legality," is applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or judicial rules of procedure.[18] Positive rules prevail over all abstract arguments based on equity contra legem.[19] Neither is the principle of unjust enrichment applicable since petitioner (who was to benefit from it) had a valid claim.[20]
	GR No. 151908 2003-08-12	SMART COMMUNICATIONS v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The rules and regulations that administrative agencies promulgate, which are the product of a delegated legislative power to create new and additional legal provisions that have the effect of law, should be within the scope of the statutory authority granted by the legislature to the administrative agency. It is required that the regulation be germane to the objects and purposes of the law, and be not in contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by law.[17] They must conform to and be consistent with the provisions of the enabling statute in order for such rule or regulation to be valid. Constitutional and statutory provisions control with respect to what rules and regulations may be promulgated by an administrative body, as well as with respect to what fields are subject to regulation by it. It may not make rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or a statute, particularly the statute it is administering or which created it, or which are in derogation of, or defeat, the purpose of a statute. In case of conflict between a statute and an administrative order, the former must prevail.[18]