Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 178 views

    Marina V Coa

    Uploaded by

    June
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that: 1) The allowances and benefits received by officers and employees of MARINA constituted double compensation as they were not excluded by law from their standardized salaries. 2) Officers who approved disallowed allowances and benefits in bad faith or with gross negligence must refund the amounts. 3) Both the approving officers and MARINA's cashier Erlinda Baltazar must refund the disallowed amounts paid to her, as the disparity in her payments compared to others indicates a lack of good faith.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Marina V Coa

    Uploaded by

    June
    178 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that: 1) The allowances and benefits received by officers and employees of MARINA constituted double compensation as they were not excluded by law from their standardized salaries. 2) Officers who approved disallowed allowances and benefits in bad faith or with gross negligence must refund the amounts. 3) Both the approving officers and MARINA's cashier Erlinda Baltazar must refund the disallowed amounts paid to her, as the disparity in her payments compared to others indicates a lack of good faith.

    Original Description:

    aaaa

    Original Title

    Marina v Coa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that: 1) The allowances and benefits received by officers and employees of MARINA constituted double compensation as they were not excluded by law from their standardized salaries. 2) Officers who approved disallowed allowances and benefits in bad faith or with gross negligence must refund the amounts. 3) Both the approving officers and MARINA's cashier Erlinda Baltazar must refund the disallowed amounts paid to her, as the disparity in her payments compared to others indicates a lack of good faith.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    178 views2 pages

    Marina V Coa

    Uploaded by

    June
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that: 1) The allowances and benefits received by officers and employees of MARINA constituted double compensation as they were not excluded by law from their standardized salaries. 2) Officers who approved disallowed allowances and benefits in bad faith or with gross negligence must refund the amounts. 3) Both the approving officers and MARINA's cashier Erlinda Baltazar must refund the disallowed amounts paid to her, as the disparity in her payments compared to others indicates a lack of good faith.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    MARINA v.

    COA

    G.R. No. 185812 January 13, 2015

    (guys, di ko sure sa last two issues if pareho rba sila or ag first issue is more general and ag second is
    case-specific)

    Issue: Does the grant of allowances and benefits to the officers and employees of MARINA constitute
    double compensation?

    Ruling: Yes. Republic Act No. 6758 deems all allowances and benefits received by government officials
    and employees as incorporated in the standardized salary, unless excluded by law or an issuance by the
    Department of Budget and Management. The integration of the benefits and allowances is by legal
    fiction.

    The disallowed benefits and allowances of petitioner Maritime Industry Authority’s officials and
    employees were not excluded by law or an issuance by the Department of Budget and Management.
    Thus, these were deemed already given to the officials and employees when they received their basic
    salaries. Their receipt of the disallowed benefits and allowances was tantamount to double
    compensation.

    Issue: In case of disallowance, who should be liable to refund the amounts released?

    Ruling: Officers who acted in bad faith or were grossly negligent. With regard to the disallowance of
    salaries, emoluments, benefits, and allowances of government employees, prevailing
    jurisprudence provides that recipients or payees need not refund these disallowed amounts when they
    received these in good faith. Government officials and employees who received benefits or allowances,
    which were disallowed, may keep the amounts received if there is no finding of bad faith and the
    disbursement was made in good faith.

    On the other hand, officers who participated in the approval of the disallowed allowances or benefits
    are required to refund only the amounts received when they are found to be in bad faith or grossly
    negligent amounting to bad faith.

    Issue: Who should be liable to refund the amounts released and paid to the officers and employees of
    MARINA which were disallowed by COA?

    Ruling: The approving officers and Erlinda Baltazar. The records do not show the reason why Erlinda
    Baltazar, petitioner Maritime Industry Authority’s cashier, received high amounts for the allowances as
    shown in the notices of disallowance.

    The amount given to Erlinda Baltazar is exorbitant especially when contrasted with the other officers and
    employees of petitioner Maritime Industry Authority receiving the same allowance. The disparity in the
    amounts given to Erlinda Baltazar compared to the other officers and employees is too substantial to
    consider her and the approving officers to be in good faith when Erlinda Baltazar received the amounts.
    Thus, Erlinda Baltazar and the approving officers are solidarily liable to refund all amounts received by
    Erlinda Baltazar based on what was disallowed by respondent Commission on Audit.

    You might also like