PSLMC RESOLUTION NO. 2 SERIES OF 2002

In fact, it was the Board of Directors of MIAA who acted beyond their jurisdiction and abused their authority to approve the benefits of MIAA officers and employees 29 when they authorized the payment of a benefit that has already been abrogated. Petitioners here received the additional allowances and bonuses in good faith under the honest belief that the LWUA Board Resolution No. To stress, the requirement to pay the CNA Incentive at year end is precisely because it is only at the end of the year that the amount of savings generated from MOOE could be determined and could be used as funding of the intended CNA Incentive. With respect to the requirement that the CNA Incentive be released after the end of the year, this does not contravene any provision of A. Actual cash operating expenses of Php 2. With this petition, this Court is confronted with the task of ascertaining the real nature of the subject benefit. While there are exceptions provided under Sections 12 and 17 of R. Castillo Castillo , appealed N.

The relevant portions thereof state: This Court partially agrees with the COA. The same is true as far as the concerned officers of MIAA are concerned. In fact, it was the Board of Directors of MIAA who acted beyond their jurisdiction and abused their authority to approve the benefits of MIAA officers and employees 29 when they authorized the payment of a benefit that has already been abrogated. It was therefore, a sort of a signing bonus. Of the total excess in operating expense budget of Php The scope of the exercise of such rule-making power was clearly expressed in the case of United States v. So long, however, as the regulations relate solely to carrying into effect the provision of the law, they are valid.

Favorable variance is Php Indeed, it is plain common sense that it is only by the end of the year that the exact amount of seriex is known and whether it is sufficient to cover the CNA Incentive.

PSLMC Resolutions

MIAA had placed itself in a rather curious position by taking what is clearly a piece-meal approach. JPA 5 dated November 4,stating that the payment of the said contract signing bonus had been previously declared improper by this Court in Social Security System v.

The PSLMC, of which we are a member, is already looking at options on how the issues can be resolved expeditiously.

Trinidad Lichauco, Phil. Moreover, while it is true that in said PSLMC Resolution, the CNA incentive may be granted to the rank-and-file employees, resolition grant thereof is not absolute or automatic as the conditions set forth under Section 3 thereof have to be complied with by the MIAA before it can grant the O incentive bonus, which states: It has not reached the stage of an official pronouncement of the President or of the DBM.

Essentially, the conclusion reached by this Court is anchored on plsmc following: Petitioners here received the additional allowances and bonuses nno. good faith under the honest belief that the LWUA Board Resolution No. In fact, it was the Board of Directors of MIAA who acted beyond their jurisdiction and abused their authority to approve od benefits of MIAA officers and employees 29 when they authorized the payment of a benefit that has already been abrogated.

  CINEMA ROYAL ACROPOLIS BUCARAMANGA

In its Decision No. Simply put, these individuals cannot honestly claim that they have no knowledge of the illegality of their acts. Such savings should be generated out of the cost-cutting measures identified in the CNAs and supplements thereto. Alternatively, if they acted 2002 the belief that the benefit is a CNA Incentive, they were in no position to approve its funding without assuring themselves that the conditions imposed by PSLMC Resolution No.

The scope of the exercise of such rule-making power was clearly expressed in the case of United States v. There is no clear showing that resoultion former secretary of DBM transcended the demarcations fixed by A.

Commission on Audit, Phil. Issues With this petition, this Court is confronted with the task of ascertaining the real nature of the subject benefit.

However, the said conflict is more imagined than real. COA and the various issuances of the Executive Department prohibiting the grant of the signing bonus. The signing bonus could not have been included in the salutary provisions of the statute nor would it be legal to disburse to the resoltion recipients. Of the total excess in operating expense budget of Php The COB is the budget of a GOCC or GFI, which ;slmc of estimates of revenues, expenditures and borrowings and prepared prior to the beginning of the fiscal year and recommended by the governing board.

Agitation and propaganda which are so commonly practiced in private sector labor-management relations have no place in the bureaucracy and that only a peaceful collective negotiation which is concluded within a reasonable time must be the standard for interaction in the public sector. This Court finds no reason to deviate from prevailing jurisprudence, stating that disallowed benefits received in good faith need not be refunded.

To guarantee that the CNA Incentive would be exclusively funded by the savings generated from the implementation of cost-cutting measures, PSLMC imposed the following conditions:. However, MIAA failed to sustain its claim of an existing conflict, which more than suggests that it is merely grasping at straws.

Clearly, good faith is anchored on an honest belief that one is legally entitled to the benefit. COA, which effectively illegalized the signing bonus for being inconsistent with the objectives of R. Please refer to the attached Supreme Court Decision. This is so, since it shall be sourced solely from savings from released Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses MOOE allotments for the year under review.

By specifying the time when the CNA Incentive may be released to the rank-and-file employees, the former DBM Secretary was merely supplying a detail necessary for the proper implementation of A. Moreover, prior to the issuance of AOM No. There is no dispute that the grant of a signing bonus had been previously disallowed by the express mandate of then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo President Arroyo.

  SOSEAUA NORDULUI FILM ONLINE

So long, however, as the regulations relate solely to carrying into effect the provision of the law, they are valid. In her letter dated December 19,11 Castillo alleged that: Thus, being in good faith, petitioners need not refund the allowances and bonuses they received but disallowed by the COA.

In a petition for certiorari, the burden is on the part of the petitioner to prove not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondent issuing the impugned order.

While there are exceptions provided under Sections 12 and 17 of R. The moratorium will be in effect until such time that the problems are resolved and a policy is issued on the matter.

In your letter dated October 7,it was explained that the grant of signing bonus was sanctioned by Resolution No. On the basis of the foregoing pronouncement, we do not find the signing bonus to be a truly reasonable compensation.

Furthermore, their acceptance of the disallowed grant, in the absence of any competent proof of bad faith on their part, will not suffice to render liable for a refund. Without further extrapolation, these amounts remain to be mere approximations until the end of the year. We reiterate the principle that the power of administrative officials to promulgate rules and regulations in the implementation of a statute is necessarily limited only to carrying into effect what is provided in the legislative enactment.

Actual corporate operating income of Php 4.

Administrative Order No. 135, s. 2005

In her letter dated December 19,11 Castillo alleged that:. The same is resllution true as far as the Board of Directors. This Court partially agrees with the COA.

The officials and chiefs of no. concerned disbursed such incentive benefits in the honest belief that the amounts given were due to the recipients and the latter accept the same with no., confident that they richly deserve such benefits. Moreover, while it is true that in said PSLMC Resolution, the CNA incentive may be granted to the rank-and-file employees, the grant thereof is not absolute or automatic as the conditions set forth under Section 3 thereof have to be complied with by the MIAA before it can grant the CNA incentive bonus, which states:.