Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROHBERT A. AMBROS v. COA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 185812 2015-01-13	MARITIME INDUSTRY AUTHORITY v. COA LEONEN, J.
The clear policy of Section 12 is "to standardize salary rates among government personnel and do away with multiple allowances and other incentive packages and the resulting differences in compensation among them."[73] Thus, the general rule is that all allowances are deemed included in the standardized salary.[74] However, there are allowances that may be given in addition to the standardized salary. These non-integrated allowances are specifically identified in Section 12, to wit: representation and transportation allowances;
	GR No. 181973 2013-04-17	AMELIA AQUINO v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY PEREZ, J.
Petitioners further invoked that the denial of their claim of 40% RATA violated their constitutional right to equal protection of the laws. We note that the Constitution does not require that things which are different in fact be treated in law as though they were the same. The equal protection clause does not prohibit discrimination as to things that are different. It does not prohibit legislation which is limited either in the object to which it is directed or by the territory within which it is to operate.[38]
	GR No. 192935 2010-12-07	LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010 MENDOZA, J.
The OSG also cites the recent case of Banda v. Ermita,[44] where it was held that the President has the power to reorganize the offices and agencies in the executive department in line with his constitutionally granted power of control and by virtue of a valid delegation of the legislative power to reorganize executive offices under existing statutes.
	GR No. 176006 2010-03-26	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. PINATUBO COMMERCIAL CORONA, J.
The equal protection clause means that "no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and in like circumstances."[25] The guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on a reasonable classification.[26] The equal protection clause, therefore, does not preclude classification of individuals who may be accorded different treatment under the law as long as the classification is reasonable and not arbitrary.[27]
	GR No. 166715 2008-08-14	ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST v. PURISIMA CORONA, J.
The equal protection clause recognizes a valid classification, that is, a classification that has a reasonable foundation or rational basis and not arbitrary.[22] With respect to RA 9335, its expressed public policy is the optimization of the revenue-generation capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC.[23] Since the subject of the law is the revenue- generation capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC, the incentives and/or sanctions provided in the law should logically pertain to the said agencies. Moreover, the law concerns only the BIR and the BOC because they have the common distinct primary function of generating revenues for the national government through the collection of taxes, customs duties, fees and charges.
	GR No. 169815 2008-08-13	BUREAU OF FISHERIES v. COA PUNO, CJ.
Petitioner argues that the grant of the Food Basket Allowance does not violate Sec. 12 of R.A. No. 6758 or the Salary Standardization Law. This law was passed to standardize salary rates among government personnel and do away with multiple allowances and other incentive packages and the resulting differences in compensation among them.[11] Sec. 12 of the law provides:Consolidation of Allowances and Compensation. All allowances, except for representation and transportation allowances; clothing and laundry allowances; subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels and hospital personnel; hazard pay; allowances of foreign service personnel stationed abroad; and such other additional compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be determined by the DBM [Department of Budget and Management], shall be deemed included in the standardized salary rates herein prescribed. Such other additional compensation, whether in cash or in kind, being received by incumbents only as of July 1, 1989 not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized.