This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-04-14 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| LBP specifically emphasized in its motion that LOI Nos. 104 and 116 have been repealed by the SSL and that LBP itself was excluded from the SSL's coverage even before its implementing rules were invalidated by the court. Thus, it is petitioner's position that it cannot be legally compelled to pay the COLA and the BEP up to the present. LBP further cites Galang v. Land Bank of the Philippines[38](Galang) where this Court supposedly recognized that the COLA had been replaced by Personnel Economic Relief Allowance (PERA), which is now extended to all LBP employees.[39] To petitioner, these are all established facts that significantly demolish the conclusion reached by the appellate court to the effect that the COLA and the BEP should be given to respondents up to the present because LOI Nos. 104 and 116 remain to be the governing laws on the matter. | |||||