Scribd
Upload
77 views2 pages

Lanto Vs Coa

This case involved a petition for certiorari filed by Nini A. Lanto challenging a decision by the Commission on Audit (COA) holding her personally liable to refund salary payments made to a dismissed employee, Labrador. While the COA affirmed the disallowance of Labrador's salary payments made after his dismissal, the Supreme Court ruled that COA committed grave abuse of discretion by making Lanto personally liable, as she was only implementing the continued payments in good faith based on existing rules. However, the Court affirmed the COA decision in all other respects.

Uploaded by

Sealtiel Villareal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
77 views2 pages

Lanto Vs Coa

This case involved a petition for certiorari filed by Nini A. Lanto challenging a decision by the Commission on Audit (COA) holding her personally liable to refund salary payments made to a dismissed employee, Labrador. While the COA affirmed the disallowance of Labrador's salary payments made after his dismissal, the Supreme Court ruled that COA committed grave abuse of discretion by making Lanto personally liable, as she was only implementing the continued payments in good faith based on existing rules. However, the Court affirmed the COA decision in all other respects.

Uploaded by

Sealtiel Villareal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Lanto vs.

COA
G.R. No. 217189, April 18, 2017
Topic: Back Salaries/good faith
Facts: Labrador was the former Chief of the POEA's Employment Services Regulation Division.
On May 2, 1997, then Labor Secretary Leonardo A. Quisumbing ordered his dismissal from
service as he was found to have bribed a certain MadolineVillapando, an overseas Filipino
worker, in the amount of P6,200.00 in order to expedite the issuance of her overseas
employment certificate. Labrador's dismissal was affirmed on appeal by the Civil Service
Commission through CSC Resolution No. 03-0339 dated March 12, 2003, and his subsequent
motion for reconsideration was denied through CSC Resolution No. 040547 dated May 17,
2004.
In a Resolution dated January 26, 2000 (January 26, 2000 Resolution), the Court affirmed
Labrador's conviction and subsequently denied his motion for reconsideration with finality on
March 15, 2000. Likewise, in a Resolution dated June 28, 2000, the Court denied Labrador's
motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration with motion for new trial and prayer
for referral to the Court En Banc, resulting in the January 26, 2000 Resolution's entry of
judgment. On February 26, 2001,
Labradors counsel de oficio, Atty. Vicente Espina, manifested in open court that Labrador
desires to apply for probation in accordance with Presidential Decree No. (PD) 968, as
amended by PD 1990.
Through a letter dated March 3, 2006, Dimapilis-Baldoz sought the reconsideration of the Notice
of Disallowance, asserting that the POEA should not be held liable for the refund of the
foregoing amount since Labrador's employment was fully and promptly terminated upon receipt
of the SB's March 2, 2004 Resolution. However, on October 29, 2009, the COA issued Decision
No. 2009-121 which affirmed the Notice of Disallowance and reiterated that the amount
covering the salaries and benefits of Labrador should not have been paid to him from August
1999 to March 31, 2004 pending final resolution of the criminal case against him.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in holding the petitioner
personally liable to refund the disallowed salary payments?
HELD:
The petition for certiorari is partly meritorious.
The petitioner is essentially assailing Decision No. 2009-121 and the Order of Execution dated
November 25, 2013 she had received on December 18, 2013.
The time within which an aggrieved party may seek the review of an adverse judgment or final
order or resolution through the special civil action governed by Rule 64 of the Rules of Court is
fixed in Section 3, which states:
Section 3.Time to file petition. - The petition shall be filed within thirty (30) days from notice of
the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed. The filing of a motion for new
trial or reconsideration of said judgment or final order or resolution, if allowed under the
procedural rules of the Commission concerned, shall interrupt the period herein fixed. If the
motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which
shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.
Nonetheless, the Court has recognized several justifications to suspend the strict adherence
with rigid procedural rules like the doctrine of immutability, such as: (a) matters of life, liberty,
honor or property; (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the merits of the
case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the
suspension of the rules; (e) lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and
dilatory; and (f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.
WHEREFORE, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the petition for certiorari; and AFFIRMS
Decision No. 2009-121 dated October 29, 2009 rendered by the Commission on Audit affirming
Notice of Disallowance No. 2006-002 dated January 18, 2006, the Notice of Finality of Decision
dated January 7, 2010, and the Orders of Execution dated October 26, 2011 and November 25,
2013 subject to the MODIFICATION that the portion pertaining to the personal liability of
petitioner Nini A. Lanto is DELETED.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy