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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    De Jesus Vs COA

    Uploaded by

    Yen

    Copyright:

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

    De Jesus Vs COA

    Uploaded by

    Yen
    6 views2 pages

    Original Title

    De Jesus vs COA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    6 views2 pages

    De Jesus Vs COA

    Uploaded by

    Yen

    Copyright:

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

    De Jesus vs.

    Commission on Audit
    G.R. No. 109023
    August 12, 1998

    Facts:
    Prior to July 1, 1989, employees of the Local Water Utilities Administration
    (LWUA) were receiving honoraria for their roles in the LWUA Board
    Secretariat and the Pre-qualification, Bids, and Awards Committee.
    However, on July 1, 1989, the Department of Budget and Management
    (DBM) issued Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 (DBM-CCC No.
    10), which stopped the payment of allowances and additional
    compensation to government officials and employees, including the
    petitioners. Respondent Leonardo Jamoralin, acting as the corporate
    auditor, disallowed the payment of honoraria to the petitioners in line
    with DBM-CCC No. 10. The petitioners contested the validity and
    implementation of DBM-CCC No. 10 before the Commission on Audit
    (COA). The COA upheld the validity of DBM-CCC No. 10 and supported
    the refusal of the honoraria. Consequently, the petitioners brought their
    case to the Supreme Court.

    Issue:
    Whether or not DBM-CCC No. 10 is legally effective despite its lack of
    publication in the Official Gazette.

    Ruling:
    The Supreme Court decided in favor of the petitioners, ruling that for
    DBM-CCC No. 10 to take effect and be enforceable, it must be published
    either in the Official Gazette or in a widely circulated newspaper in the
    Philippines. The Court set aside the COA's decision and instructed the
    respondents to subject the petitioners' honoraria to audit. It stressed that
    DBM-CCC No. 10, being an administrative circular implementing existing
    laws, falls under the Tanada v. Tuvera doctrine, which mandates the
    publication of laws and administrative circulars for their efficacy and
    enforceability. The Court highlighted that DBM-CCC No. 10 isn't merely
    interpretative or internal but impacts government employees' allowances
    and compensation. Thus, publication is essential to allow affected officials
    and employees to voice their concerns, aligning with democratic
    principles and fairness.

    You might also like