This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-10-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The delegation of the said official to the respective Board of Directors were designation by Congress of additional functions and duties to the officials concerned, i.e., they were designated as members of the Board of Directors. Designation connotes an imposition of additional duties, usually by law, upon a person already in the public service by virtue of an earlier appointment.[34] Designation does not entail payment of additional benefits or grant upon the person so designated the right to claim the salary attached to the position. Without an appointment, a designation does not entitle the officer to receive the salary of the position. The legal basis of an employee's right to claim the salary attached thereto is a duly issued and approved appointment to the position, and not a mere designation.[35] | |||||
|
2008-11-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| On appeal, docketed as DARAB Case No. 12486, the DARAB reversed the ruling of the PARAD in its Decision[10] dated 15 March 2004. The DARAB held, inter alia, that the EPs were valid, since it was the Heirs of Deleste who should have informed the DAR of the pendency of Civil Case No. 698 at the time the subject property was placed under the coverage of the Operation Land Transfer Program. It further found that the question of exemption from the Operation Land Transfer Program lay within the jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary or his authorized representative. The Heirs of Deleste filed a Motion for Reconsideration[11] of the aforementioned Decision, but the Motion was denied by the DARAB in its Resolution dated 8 July 2004. | |||||
|
2007-03-01 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| [29] National Amnesty Commission v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 156982, 8 September 2004, 437 SCRA 655; Ta�ada v. Tuvera, 230 Phil. 528 (1986). | |||||