This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-09-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In essence, the Movants Federico Pascual, et al. are asking this Court to reconsider our Decision in so far as their liability, as the payees, to return the benefits they had already received, by applying our rulings in Molen, Jr. v. Commission on Audit,[1] De Jesus v. Commission on Audit,[2] Magno v. Commission on Audit,[3] Baybay Water District v. Commission on Audit,[4] Barbo v. Commission on Audit,[5] Bases Conversion and Development Authority v. Commission on Audit,[6] among others, wherein, despite this Court's disapproval of the allowances and/or benefits the payees therein received, for being contrary to the law applicable in those cases, this Court did not require such payees to refund the monies they had received in good faith. On April 11, 2012, the public respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, commented and agreed with the Movants Federico Pascual, et al. that it would be an injustice if they were ordered to refund the retirement benefits they had received more than a decade ago. | |||||
|
2011-02-08 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| On January 28, 1997, petitioners filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration claiming that the issuance of the Notice of Disallowance was premature in view of the pending case in the Office of the Ombudsman. The Motion was denied by the Auditor. Unfazed, petitioners filed an appeal with the Director of COA Regional Office No. IX, Zamboanga City. On August 29, 1997, the COA Regional Office issued Decision No. 97-001 affirming the findings of the Auditor. On February 4, 1998, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the Regional Office in Decision No. 98-005[14] issued on February 18, 1998. | |||||
|
2009-02-26 |
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] | |||||