Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    Juris Per Diems

    Uploaded by

    karl
    This document summarizes a court case regarding whether certain government employees must refund allowances and bonuses that were disallowed by the Commission on Audit (COA). The court cited a previous ruling that found that if parties acted in good faith, they cannot be required to refund benefits already received. As the employees in this case received the additional payments in good faith, believing they were properly authorized, the court determined that citing the previous ruling, the employees do not need to refund the disallowed payments.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Juris Per Diems

    Uploaded by

    karl
    39 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case regarding whether certain government employees must refund allowances and bonuses that were disallowed by the Commission on Audit (COA). The court cited a previous ruling that found that if parties acted in good faith, they cannot be required to refund benefits already received. As the employees in this case received the additional payments in good faith, believing they were properly authorized, the court determined that citing the previous ruling, the employees do not need to refund the disallowed payments.

    Original Description:

    Juris

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case regarding whether certain government employees must refund allowances and bonuses that were disallowed by the Commission on Audit (COA). The court cited a previous ruling that found that if parties acted in good faith, they cannot be required to refund benefits already received. As the employees in this case received the additional payments in good faith, believing they were properly authorized, the court determined that citing the previous ruling, the employees do not need to refund the disallowed payments.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    39 views2 pages

    Juris Per Diems

    Uploaded by

    karl
    This document summarizes a court case regarding whether certain government employees must refund allowances and bonuses that were disallowed by the Commission on Audit (COA). The court cited a previous ruling that found that if parties acted in good faith, they cannot be required to refund benefits already received. As the employees in this case received the additional payments in good faith, believing they were properly authorized, the court determined that citing the previous ruling, the employees do not need to refund the disallowed payments.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    159355 August 9, 2010

    GABRIEL C. SINGSON, ANDRE NAVATO, EDGARDO P. ZIALCITA, ARACELI E.


    VILLANUEVA, TYRONE M. REYES, JOSE CLEMENTE, JR., FEDERICO PASCUAL,
    ALEJANDRA C. CLEMENTE, ALBERT P. FENIX, JR., and MELPIN A. GONZAGA,
    Petitioners vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.

    J. Peralta

    The ruling in Blaquera, to which the cited case of ADEPT v.


    COA was consolidated with, is applicable to the present case as petitioners acted in good
    faith. The disposition in De Jesus v. Commission on Audit,[24] which cited Blaquera, is
    instructive:

    Nevertheless, our pronouncement in Blaquera v.


    [25]
    Alcala supports petitioners position on the refund of the benefits they
    received. In Blaquera, the officials and employees of several government
    departments and agencies were paid incentive benefits which the COA
    disallowed on the ground that Administrative Order No. 29 dated 19
    January 1993 prohibited payment of these benefits. While the Court
    sustained the COA on the disallowance, it nevertheless declared that:

    Considering, however, that all the parties here acted


    in good faith, we cannot countenance the refund of subject
    incentive benefits for the year 1992, which amounts the
    petitioners have already received. Indeed, no indicia of bad
    faith can be detected under the attendant facts and
    circumstances. The officials and chiefs of offices concerned
    disbursed such incentive benefits 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 benefits.

    This ruling in Blaquera applies to the instant case. Petitioners here


    received the additional allowances and bonuses in good faith under the
    honest belief that LWUA Board Resolution No. 313 authorized such
    payment. At the time petitioners received the additional allowances and
    bonuses, the Court had not yet decided Baybay Water District [v.
    Commission on Audit].[26] Petitioners had no knowledge that such payment
    was without legal basis. Thus, being in good faith, petitioners need not
    refund the allowances and bonuses they received but disallowed by the
    COA.[27]
    In subsequent cases,[28] the Court took into account the good faith of the recipients
    of the allowances, bonuses, and other benefits disallowed by respondent and ruled that
    they need not refund the same.

    You might also like