This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-03-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| In National Tobacco Administration, the Court interpreted this provision as referring to benefits in the nature of financial assistance, or a bonus or other payment made to employees in addition to guaranteed hourly wages, as contradistinguished from the allowance in the first sentence, which cannot, strictly speaking, be treated as a bonus or additional income. In financial assistance, reimbursement is not necessary, while in the case of allowance, reimbursement is required.[19] | |||||
|
2008-12-08 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, a petition for certiorari before a higher court will not prosper unless the inferior court has been given, through a motion for reconsideration, a chance to correct the errors imputed to it. This rule, though, has certain exceptions: (1) when the issue raised is purely of law, (2) when public interest is involved, or (3) in case of urgency. As a fourth exception, it has been held that the filing of a motion for reconsideration before availment of the remedy of certiorari is not a condition sine qua non when the questions raised are the same as those that have already been squarely argued and exhaustively passed upon by the lower court.[39] | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The benefits excluded from the standardized salary rates are the "allowances" which are usually granted to officials and employees of the government to defray or reimburse the expenses incurred in the performance of their official functions.[15] Clearly, the rice subsidy and health care allowance granted by BSU were not among the allowances listed in Section 12 which State workers can continue to receive under R.A. No. 6758 over and above their standardized salary rates. Hence, no abuse of discretion was committed by the COA in disallowing the disbursement of funds. | |||||