This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-03-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The position of project officer is not among those listed or authorized to be entitled to EME, namely, the officials named in the GAA, the officers of equivalent rank as may be authorized by the DBM, and the offices under them. The underlying principle behind the EME is to enable those occupying key positions in the government to meet various financial demands.[24] As pointed out by COA, the position of project officer is not even included in the Personnel Service Itemization or created with authority from the DBM.[25] Thus, the TESDA officials were, in fact, merely designated with additional duties, which designation did not entitle them to additional EME. In Dimaandal v. COA,[26] we held that designation is a mere imposition of additional duties, which does not entail payment of additional benefits. Since the TESDA officials were merely designated with additional duties, the ruling in Cantillo v. Arrieta[27] on de facto officers need not be discussed. | |||||
|
2006-12-19 |
|||||
| SECTION 103. General liability for unlawful expenditures. Expenditures of government funds or uses of government property in violation of law or regulations shall be a personal liability of the official or employee found to be directly responsible therefor. Under this provision, an official or employee shall be personally liable for unauthorized expenditures if the following requisites are present, to wit: (a) there must be an expenditure of government funds or use of government property; (b) the expenditure is in violation of law or regulation; and (c) the official is found directly responsible therefor.[7] | |||||