Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MOISES G. MOLEN v. COA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 159355 2010-08-09	GABRIEL C. SINGSON v. COA PERALTA, J.
In subsequent cases,[28] the Court took into account the good faith of the recipients of the allowances, bonuses, and other benefits disallowed by respondent and ruled that they need not refund the same.
	GR No. 183141 2009-09-18	EDGARDO H. CATINDIG v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It bears stressing that in granting those benefits and allowances, the Board of Directors of CWD relied on Resolution No. 313, Series of 1995, as amended by Resolution No. 39, Series of 1996, entitled "Policy Guidelines on Compensation and Other Benefits to Water District Board of Directors," which was issued by the LWUA itself, the body that oversees and regulates the operations of the local water districts. The benefits granted by the said LWUA Resolution No. 313, Series of 1995,to the board of directors of water districts are the following: rata, travel allowance, extraordinary and miscellaneous expense, Christmas bonus, cash gift, uniform allowance, rice allowance, medical/dental benefits and productivity incentive bonus.[30]
	GR No. 178160 2009-02-26	BASES CONVERSION v. COA CARPIO, J.
Section 9 specifies that Board members shall receive a per diem for every board meeting; limits the amount of per diem to not more than P5,000; and limits the total amount of per diem for one month to not more than four meetings. In Magno v. Commission on Audit,[16] Cabili v. Civil Service Commission,[17] De Jesus v. Civil Service Commission,[18] Molen, Jr. v. Commission on Audit,[19] and Baybay Water District v. Commission on Audit,[20] the Court held that the specification of compensation and limitation of the amount of compensation in a statute indicate that Board members are entitled only to the per diem authorized by law and no other. In Baybay Water District, the Court held that:By specifying the compensation which a director is entitled to receive and by limiting the amount he/she is allowed to receive in a month, x x x the law quite clearly indicates that directors x x x are authorized to receive only the per diem authorized by law and no other compensation or allowance in whatever form.[21]
	GR NO. 149941 2007-08-28	GABRIEL A. MAGNO v. COA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Molen, Jr. v. Commission on Audit,[11] citing the case of Baybay Water District v. Commission on Audit,[12] the Court already ruled that:x x x [R.A. No. 6758 also known as] the Salary Standardization Law, does not apply to petitioners because directors of water districts are in fact limited to policy-making and are prohibited from the management of the districts. [Section 18, P.D. No. 198] described the functions of members of boards of directors of water districts as follows: