This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-09-06 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| However, in line with existing jurisprudence,[46] we need not require the refund of the disallowed amount because all the parties acted in good faith. In this case, the questioned disbursement was made pursuant to an ordinance enacted as early as December 7, 2000 although deemed approved only on August 22, 2002. The city officials disbursed the retirement and gratuity pay remuneration in the honest belief that the amounts given were due to the recipients and the latter accepted the same with gratitude, confident that they richly deserve such reward. | |||||