Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VICTORIA C. GUTIERREZ v. DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 185812 2015-01-13	MARITIME INDUSTRY AUTHORITY v. COA LEONEN, J.
Action by the Department of Budget and Management is not required to implement Section 12 integrating allowances into the standardized salary.[77] Rather, an issuance by the Department of Budget and Management is required only if additional non-integrated allowances will be identified. Without this issuance from the Department of Budget and Management, the enumerated non-integrated allowances in Section 12 remain exclusive.[78]
	GR No. 180016 2014-04-29	LITO CORPUZ v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
Even if the imposable penalty amounts to cruel punishment, the Court cannot declare the provision of the law from which the proper penalty emanates unconstitutional in the present action. Not only is it violative of due process, considering that the State and the concerned parties were not given the opportunity to comment on the subject matter, it is settled that the constitutionality of a statute cannot be attacked collaterally because constitutionality issues must be pleaded directly and not collaterally,[43] more so in the present controversy wherein the issues never touched upon the constitutionality of any of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
	GR No. 195687 2014-04-14	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. DAVID G. NAVAL VELASCO JR., J.
On April 15, 2011, LBP filed a Petition for Review before this Court, ascribing to the appellate court the commission of serious reversible errors. LBP argues that the integration/consolidation of COLA and BEP undertaken by LBP cannot be considered a circumvention of LOI Nos. 104 and 116 as it was validated and confirmed as a state policy under the SSL barely two months after the integration of the COLA was implemented. [32] Citing Gutierrez v. DBM,[33] LBP maintains that based on Section 12 of the SSL, the COLA and BEP are among those falling into the general category of allowances that shall be "deemed included" in the standardized salary rates prescribed in it.[34]
	GR No. 198935 2013-11-27	MAYNILAD WATER SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION v. MAYNILAD WATER SERVICES PEREZ, J.
In Gutierrez v. DBM,[13] which is a consolidated case involving over 20 government-owned and controlled corporations, the Court found proper the inclusion of COLA in the standardized salary rates. It settled that COLA, not being an enumerated exclusion, was deemed already incorporated in the standardized salary rates of government employees under the general rule of integration. In explaining its inclusion in the standardized salary rates, the Court cited its ruling in National Tobacco Administration v. COA,[14] in that the enumerated fringe benefits in items (1) to (6) have one thing in common they belong to one category of privilege called 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. Consequently, if these allowances are consolidated with the standardized salary rates, then the government official or employee will be compelled to spend his personal funds in attending to his duties. On the other hand, item (7) is a "catch-all proviso" for benefits in the nature of allowances similar to those enumerated.[15]
	GR No. 191424 2013-08-07	ALFEO D. VIVAS v. MONETARY BOARD OF BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS MENDOZA, J.
Preliminarily, Vivas' attempt to assail the constitutionality of Section 30 of R.A. No. 7653 constitutes collateral attack on the said provision of law. Nothing is more settled than the rule that the constitutionality of a statute cannot be collaterally attacked as constitutionality issues must be pleaded directly and not collaterally.[41] A collateral attack on a presumably valid law is not permissible. Unless a law or rule is annulled in a direct proceeding, the legal presumption of its validity stands.[42]
	GR No. 146073 2003-01-13	JERRY E. ACEDERA v. INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES CARPIO MORALES, J.
Unsatisfied with the decision of the NLRC, APCWU filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals while petitioners-appellants filed theirs with this Court which referred the petition[22] to the Court of Appeals.