This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-06-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's argument lacks merit. One cannot prove his claim by placing the burden of proof on the other party. Indeed, "(a) man cannot make evidence for himself by writing a letter containing the statements that he wishes to prove. He does not make the letter evidence by sending it to the party against whom he wishes to prove the facts [stated therein]. He no more can impose a duty to answer a charge than he can impose a duty to pay by sending goods. Therefore a failure to answer such adverse assertions in the absence of further circumstances making an answer requisite or natural has no effect as an admission."[32] | |||||
|
2007-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Meanwhile, the Director and Officer-in-Charge of Corporate Audit Office II, COA, sent a Memorandum to the COA General Counsel requesting an Authoritative Opinion regarding the above-mentioned Policy Guidelines. In response to the said Memorandum, the COA General Counsel issued Opinion No. 97-015,[5] dated 7 August 1997, stating therein that the payments of compensation and other benefits aside from the allowable per diems to Water District Board of Directors pursuant to Resolution No. 313, as amended, should be disallowed in audit for lack of legal basis, because the same was inconsistent with the provision of Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 198,[6] as amended, which is the law governing the Local Water Districts. Said Section 13, Presidential Decree No. 198, as amended, specifically provides that:Sec. 13. Compensation. - Each director shall receive a per diem, to be determined by the board, for each meeting of the Board actually attended by him, but no director shall receive per diems in any given month in excess of the equivalent of the total per diem of four meetings in any given month. No director shall receive other compensation for services to the district. | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the post-audit of MCWD's accounts, Auditor Visitacion T. Cabrera disallowed the grant of said allowance and bonuses to petitioners, applying COA Opinion No. 97-015[4] dated August 7, 1997, which declared that LWUA Resolution No. 313, series of 1995, is contrary to Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 198 (otherwise known as the Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973) which unequivocally prohibits local water district board members from receiving compensation in excess of the allowed per diems.[5] | |||||