Montejo claimed that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of DBM BC No. Commission on Audit.30 There, the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) paid CNA Incentives in the middle of 20, and again at the end of the same year in 2010. To be sure, the present case bears striking similarity, if it is not in all fours with Montejo v. The CNA Incentive for the year shall be paid as a one-time benefit after the end of the year, provided that the planned programs/activities/projects have been implemented and completed in accordance with the performance targets of the year.
PETITIONER THOUGHT THAT SINCE THE PROGRAMS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ACCOMPLISHED THE INCENTIVES CAN ALREADY BE PAID EVEN IF NOT AT THE END OF THE YEAR.ĥ.7. THE DBM CIRCULAR ALSO STATES THAT THE GIVING OUT OF INCENTIVES REQUIRES THAT PLANNED PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED AND THESE PROGRAMS WERE ACCOMPLISHED BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR. SUPREME COURT SAID NO BECAUSE PETITIONER ACTED IN GOOD FAITH. IS PETITIONER LIABLE FOR INCENTIVES PAID. THE DBM BUDGET CIRCULAR STATES THAT SUCH INCENTIVES SHALL BE GIVEN AT END OF THE YEAR. PETITIONER APPROVED AND GRANTED COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS AGREEMENT (CNA) INCENTIVES TO EMPLOYEES FROM AGENCY SAVINGS BEFORE END OF THE YEAR. Abejo is ABSOLVED from solidary liability to return the entire disallowed amount, as well as from personal liability to return the excess amount she received under Notice of Disallowance No.
2020-127 dated Januof the Commission on Audit is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
0 kommentar(er)
