You're currently signed in as:
User

DR. TERESITA L. SALVA v. GUILLERMO N. CARAGUE

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

2013-07-16
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
It is well to stress that neither will it do justice to hold Dimapilis-Baldoz personally liable simply because she possessed the final authority for the disbursements and had direct supervision over her subordinates.  Case law exhorts that although a public officer is the final approving authority and the employees who processed the transaction were directly under his supervision, personal liability does not automatically attach to him but only upon those directly responsible for the unlawful expenditures.[58] As Dimapilis-Baldoz's direct responsibility therefor had not been demonstrated, in addition to her good faith as above-discussed, there is no cogent factual or legal basis to hold her personally liable. In this respect, the Court finds that the COA gravely abused its discretion.
2011-05-31
BRION, J.
The term "unnecessary," when used in reference to expenditure of funds or uses of property, is relative.  In Dr. Teresita L. Salva, etc. v. Guillermo N. Carague, etc., et. al.,[19] we ruled that "[circumstances of time and place, behavioural and ecological factors, as well as political, social and economic conditions, would influence any such determination, x x x [T]ransactions under audit are to be judged on the basis of not only the standards of legality but also those of regularity, necessity, reasonableness and moderation." The 10-page letter of City Administrator Juan Saul F. Montecillo to the Sanggunlan explained in detail the reasons for each change and extra work order; most of which were made to address security and safety concerns that may arise not only during the holding of the Palaro, but also in other events and activities that may later be held in the sports complex. Comparing this with the COA's general and unsubstantiated declarations that the expenses were "not essential"[20] and not "dictated by the demands of good government,"[21] we find that the expenses incurred for change and extra work orders were necessary and justified.