Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND v. COA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 189767 2012-07-03	PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY v. COA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On October 31, 2007, the Deputy Director General for Finance and Administration of PEZA moved to reconsider[7] the subject Notices of Disallowance (NDs) and prayed that the concerned ex officio members be allowed to retain the per diems already received as they received them in good faith. It was contended that the payment of the per diems covered the period when the April 4, 2006 Supreme Court Resolution was not yet final and thus, PEZA honestly believed that the grant of the same was moral and legal. In the same vein, the ex officio members received them in good faith. The motion cited the cases of Home Development Mutual Fund v. Commission on Audit[8] and De Jesus v. Commission on Audit[9] as bases.
	GR NO. 167919 2007-02-14	PLARIDEL M. ABAYA v. SECRETARY HERMOGENES E. EBDANE CALLEJO, SR., J.
RA 9184 cannot be applied retroactively to govern the procurement process relative to the CP I project because it is well settled that a law or regulation has no retroactive application unless it expressly provides for retroactivity.[60] Indeed, Article 4 of the Civil Code is clear on the matter: "[l]aws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided." In the absence of such categorical provision, RA 9184 will not be applied retroactively to the CP I project whose procurement process commenced even before the said law took effect.
	GR NO. 129165 2006-10-30	SPS. RODRIGO COLOSO AND ELISA COLOSO v. SECRETARY ERNESTO V. GARILAO VELASCO, JR., J.
As previously discussed, the Complaint was filed on September 8, 1969 while PD 27 took effect only on October 21, 1972 after the February 8, 1972 CAR Decision had been rendered. Such being the case, PD 27 could not be applied retroactively to the case before the Balanga CAR. A law has no retroactive application unless the law expressly provides retroactivity.[20] Since PD 27 does not provide for retroactive application, and hence it has no effect on RA 3844 or on the jurisdiction of the Balanga CAR to authorize the conversion of the said landholdings, then it is clear that the CAR had jurisdiction over the said case.