This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2013-12-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, the disallowance of the subject car plan benefits would hamper the officials in the performance of their functions to promote and develop trade which requires mobility in the performance of official business. Indeed, the car plan benefits are supportive of the implementation of the objectives and mission of the agency relative to the nature of its operation and responsive to the exigencies of the service.[26] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2011-02-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| After hearing, public respondent, by Resolution of September 7, 2010, found the two complaints, which both allege culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust,[12] sufficient in substance. The determination of the sufficiency of substance of the complaints by public respondent, which assumed hypothetically the truth of their allegations, hinged on the issue of whether valid judgment to impeach could be rendered thereon. Petitioner was served also on September 7, 2010 a notice directing her to file an answer to the complaints within 10 days.[13] | |||||
|
2010-06-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It doesn't help petitioner's cause any that Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756, in relation to Section 3 of Executive Order No. 877, was further amended by Republic Act No. 6758,[33] otherwise known as the Compensation and Classification Act of 1989. Mandated under Article IX B, Section 5[34] of the Constitution,[35] Section 4[36] of Republic Act No. 6758 specifically extends its coverage to government owned and controlled corporations like petitioner. With this Court's ruling in Philippine International Trading Corporation v. Commission on Audit[37] to the effect that petitioner is included in the coverage of Republic Act No. 6758, it is evidently no longer exempted from OCPC rules and regulations, in keeping with said law's intent to do away with multiple allowances and other incentive packages as well as the resultant differences in compensation among government personnel. | |||||
|
2010-03-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| It is a settled rule that publication is required as a condition precedent to the effectivity of a law to inform the public of its contents before their rights and interests are affected by the same.[26] Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation.[27] | |||||
|
2007-12-04 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The aforequoted ruling was reiterated in Dadole v. Commission on Audit,[13] De Jesus v. Commission on Audit,[14] and Philippine International Trading Corporation v. Commission on Audit.[15] | |||||
|
2007-01-24 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In Philippine International Trading Corporation v. Commission on Audit,[13] we held that incumbents as of July 1, 1989 shall continue to receive the allowance mentioned in Section 12 even after R.A. No. 6758 took effect, thus: First of all, we must mention that this Court has confirmed in Philippine Ports Authority vs. Commission on Audit the legislative intent to protect incumbents who are receiving salaries and/or allowances over and above those authorized by RA 6758 to continue to receive the same even after RA 6758 took effect. In reserving the benefit to incumbents, the legislature has manifested its intent to gradually phase out this privilege without upsetting the policy of non-diminution of pay and consistent with the rule that laws should only be applied prospectively in the spirit of fairness and justice. x x x At the time of the passage of the said law, there was no intention on the part of the legislature to revoke existing benefits being enjoyed by incumbents as of July 1, 1989. | |||||
|
2005-06-30 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The COA asserts that the ruling of the Court in G.R. No. 119385 is in consonance with Philippine Ports Authority v. COA,[16] Manila International Airport Authority v. COA,[17] Philippine International Trading Corp. v. COA,[18] Social Security System v. COA[19] and Government Service Insurance System v. COA,[20] where the Court invariably ruled that in view of the enactment of R.A. No. 6758, additional financial incentives may no longer be granted to government employees. It was, likewise, held in these cases that incumbent government employees as of July 1, 1989 shall continue to receive the non-integrated benefits that they have been receiving as of the said date so as not to upset the legislature's policy on non-diminution of pay and benefits. | |||||
|
2005-06-30 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In Philippine International Trading Corp. v. COA,[30] the benefit involved was the Car Plan Program granted by the Philippine International Trading Corp. (PITC) to its officers prior to July 1, 1989. The COA disallowed the payment of the said benefit after the enactment of R.A. No. 6758. The affected officials of the PTIC filed the petition with the Court asserting that as incumbent officials they are still entitled to the said benefit even after July 1, 1989. The Court granted the petition stating that "this Court has confirmed in Philippine Ports Authority v. Commission on Audit the legislative intent to protect incumbents who are receiving salaries and/or allowances over and above those authorized by R.A. No. 6758 to continue to receive them even after the latter law took effect. In reserving the benefits to incumbents, the legislature has manifested its intent to gradually phase out this privilege without upsetting the policy of non-diminution of pay and consistent with the rule that laws should only be applied prospectively in the spirit of fairness and justice."[31] Aside from reiterating the ruling in PPA, the Court stressed in PTIC that "there was no intention on the part of the legislature to revoke existing benefits being enjoyed by incumbents of government positions at the time of the passage of R.A. No. 6758 by virtue of Sections 12 and 17 thereof."[32] | |||||