This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-06-08 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| As regards the refund of the disallowed benefits, this Court holds that the employees need not refund the benefits they received based on our ruling in Philippine Ports Authority v. Commission on Audit.[16] In that case, the COA disallowed the payment of hazard duty pay and birthday cash gifts to its employees. This Court sustained the disallowance because the grant was without legal basis. However, this Court ruled against the refund holding that:x x x Petitioners received the hazard duty pay and birthday cash gift in good faith since the benefits were authorized by PPA Special Order No. 407-97 issued pursuant to PPA Memorandum Circular No. 34-95 implementing DBM National Compensation Circular No. 76, series of 1995, and PPA Memorandum Circular No. 22-97, respectively. Petitioners at the time had no knowledge that the payment of said benefits lacked legal basis. Being in good faith, petitioners need not refund the benefits they received.[17] | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Applying by analogy, the Court's recent pronouncement in Philippine Ports Authority v. Commission on Audit,[57] thus:In regard to the refund of the disallowed benefits, this Court holds that petitioners need not refund the benefits received by them based on our rulings in Blaquera v. Alcala, De Jesus v. Commission on Audit and Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Government Service Insurance System (KMG) v. Commission on Audit. | |||||
|
2007-01-24 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In Philippine Ports Authority v. Commission on Audit,[12] we ruled that with the salary standardization scheme provided for by R.A. No. 6758, additional financial incentives may no longer be given by the government owned and controlled corporations to their personnel except to incumbents as of July 1, 1989. | |||||