Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 189767 2012-07-03	PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY v. COA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On October 31, 2007, the Deputy Director General for Finance and Administration of PEZA moved to reconsider[7] the subject Notices of Disallowance (NDs) and prayed that the concerned ex officio members be allowed to retain the per diems already received as they received them in good faith. It was contended that the payment of the per diems covered the period when the April 4, 2006 Supreme Court Resolution was not yet final and thus, PEZA honestly believed that the grant of the same was moral and legal. In the same vein, the ex officio members received them in good faith. The motion cited the cases of Home Development Mutual Fund v. Commission on Audit[8] and De Jesus v. Commission on Audit[9] as bases.
	GR NO. 140240 2007-10-18	RODOLFO S. DE JESUS v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN CORONA, J.
In de Jesus v. Commission on Audit,[14] petitioners therein (including herein petitioners de Jesus, Balucan and Castillo) were deemed to have received the additional allowances and bonuses between May to December 1997 and April to June 1998 as members of the interim board of directors of the Catbalogan Water District in good faith. Their receipt of such allowances happened before Baybay Water District v. Commission on Audit[15] was decided. This ruling was reiterated in two other de Jesus v. Commission on Audit cases.[16]