This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-02-01 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner Salenga thereafter appealed to the NLRC, which granted the appeal in a Resolution[34] dated 22 July 2005. First, it was asked to resolve the issue of the propriety of having the Laguesma Law Office represent respondent CDC in the proceedings before the LA. The said law firm entered its appearance as counsel for respondent during the pre-execution conference/hearing on 1 October 2004. On this issue, the NLRC held that respondent corporation's legal department, which had previously been representing the corporation, was not validly substituted by the Laguesma Law Office. In addition, the NLRC held that respondent had failed to comply with Memorandum Circular No. 9, Series of 1998, which strictly prohibits the hiring of lawyers of private law firms by GOCCs without the prior written conformity and acquiescence of the Office of Solicitor General, as the case may be, and the prior written concurrence of the Commission on Audit (COA). Thus, the NLRC held that all actions and submissions undertaken by the Laguesma Law Office on behalf of respondent were null and void. | |||||
|
2011-12-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As petitioners were hired after June 30, 1989, the COA was correct in disallowing the grant of the benefit to them, as they were clearly not entitled to it. As quoted above, we have repeatedly held that under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758, the only requirements for the continuous grant of allowances and fringe benefits on top of the standardized salary rates for employees of GOCCs and GFIs are as follows: (1) the employee must be an incumbent as of July 1, 1989; and (2) the allowance or benefit was not consolidated in the standardized salary rate as prescribed by Republic Act No. 6758. [55] | |||||