Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 180917 2010-04-23	ATTY. VICENTE E. SALUMBIDES v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
In Office of the Ombudsman v. Tongson,[42] the Court reminded the therein respondents, who were guilty of simple neglect of duty, that government funds must be disbursed only upon compliance with the requirements provided by law and pertinent rules.
	GR No. 169338 2009-01-20	NEW BIAN YEK COMMERCIAL v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN CORONA, J.
Notably, in this case, the municipality released the retention money more than a year after the project should have been completed. Moreover, petitioner neither averred that Gonzales and Obañana released the retention money prior to the final acceptance of the work nor required Legacy to submit a surety bond callable on demand in favor of the municipality.[18] Thus, petitioner failed to show that the said officials violated PD 1594 when they released the retention money to Legacy.