Case Digest (G.R. No. 159200)
Facts:
- The case involves the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) and its officials: Juan O. Peaa, Arturo S. Bernardino, and Vicente D. Ramos as petitioners.
- Respondents include the Commission on Audit (COA) and Corporate Auditor Arthur Hinal.
- PPA Special Order No. 407-97 granted hazard duty pay to officials and employees for the first semester of 1997, ranging from P300 to P500.
- This order was based on PPA Memorandum Circular No. 34-95, which followed the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) National Compensation Circular No. 76.
- PPA also provided a birthday cash gift of P3,000 to employees under PPA Memorandum Circular No. 22-97, approved by the PPA Board of Directors.
- On February 24, 1998, Corporate Auditor Hinal issued a notice for the refund of P2,350,875.03 received as hazard duty pay, citing violations of Section 44 of Republic Act No. 8250 and DBM Circular Letter No. 13-97.
- Notices of Disallowance were issued for the birthday cash gift payments.
- Vicente D. Ramos sought reconsideration from COA, which was denied.
- The petitioners filed a petition for review, which was also denied, leading to COA Decision No. 2002-010 on January 8, 2002, affirming the disallowance of both benefits.
- The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in COA Decision No. 2003-106 on July 17, 2003.
- The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari to annul these COA decisions.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court affirmed COA's Decision No. 2002-010 and Decision No. 2003-106, with modification.
- Petitioners were not required to re...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The Court determined that the grant of hazard duty pay lacked legal basis due to a presidential veto of the provision in the General Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997, which was not overridden by Congress.
- The Court ...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 159200)
Facts:
The case involves the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) and several of its officials, namely Juan O. Peaa, Arturo S. Bernardino, and Vicente D. Ramos, as petitioners against the Commission on Audit (COA) and Corporate Auditor Arthur Hinal as respondents. The events leading to this case began with the issuance of PPA Special Order No. 407-97, which granted hazard duty pay to PPA officials and employees for the first semester of 1997, amounting to between P300 and P500. This order was based on PPA Memorandum Circular No. 34-95, which implemented the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) National Compensation Circular No. 76, providing guidelines for hazard duty pay under the General Appropriations Act. Additionally, PPA granted a birthday cash gift of P3,000 to its employees based on PPA Memorandum Circular No. 22-97, which was approved by the PPA Board of Directors.
On February 24, 1998, Corporate Auditor Arthur H. Hinal issued a notice requiring the refund of P2,350,875.03 received as hazard duty pay, citing violations of Section 44 of Republic Act No. 8250 (General Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997) and DBM Circular Letter No. 13-97. Notices of Disallowance were also issued for the birthday cash gift payments. Vicente D. Ramos sought reconsideration from the COA, which was denied. The...