Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    Euro

    Uploaded by

    labellejolie
    This document lists 17 court cases related to the Commission on Audit (COA) and various parties. It provides a brief summary of the facts, issues, and holding for the second case: Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals vs COA. In this case, the Court held that PSPCA, which was incorporated in 1905, is a private corporation and therefore not subject to audit by the COA, as the legal basis for determining an entity as public or private did not exist at the time of PSPCA's incorporation. The document also summarizes the facts and holding of the fourth case: Laysa vs COA, where the Court affirmed the COA's authority to verify proper fiscal discharge

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Euro

    Uploaded by

    labellejolie
    52 views3 pages
    This document lists 17 court cases related to the Commission on Audit (COA) and various parties. It provides a brief summary of the facts, issues, and holding for the second case: Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals vs COA. In this case, the Court held that PSPCA, which was incorporated in 1905, is a private corporation and therefore not subject to audit by the COA, as the legal basis for determining an entity as public or private did not exist at the time of PSPCA's incorporation. The document also summarizes the facts and holding of the fourth case: Laysa vs COA, where the Court affirmed the COA's authority to verify proper fiscal discharge

    Original Description:

    Euro

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document lists 17 court cases related to the Commission on Audit (COA) and various parties. It provides a brief summary of the facts, issues, and holding for the second case: Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals vs COA. In this case, the Court held that PSPCA, which was incorporated in 1905, is a private corporation and therefore not subject to audit by the COA, as the legal basis for determining an entity as public or private did not exist at the time of PSPCA's incorporation. The document also summarizes the facts and holding of the fourth case: Laysa vs COA, where the Court affirmed the COA's authority to verify proper fiscal discharge

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    52 views3 pages

    Euro

    Uploaded by

    labellejolie
    This document lists 17 court cases related to the Commission on Audit (COA) and various parties. It provides a brief summary of the facts, issues, and holding for the second case: Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals vs COA. In this case, the Court held that PSPCA, which was incorporated in 1905, is a private corporation and therefore not subject to audit by the COA, as the legal basis for determining an entity as public or private did not exist at the time of PSPCA's incorporation. The document also summarizes the facts and holding of the fourth case: Laysa vs COA, where the Court affirmed the COA's authority to verify proper fiscal discharge

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    1. Euro-Med Laboratories, Phil., Inc. vs Province of Batangas 2. Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals vs COA 3.

    Danville Maritime, Inc. vs COA 4. Laysa vs COA 5. National Electrification vs COA 6. Caltex Philippines, Inc. vs COA 7. National Housing Authority vs COA 8. Polloso vs Gangan 9. Aguinaldo vs Sandiganbayan 10. F.F. Manacop Construction Co. Inc. vs CA 11. Uy vs COA 12. Parreno vs COA 13. Bustamante vs COA 14. CIR vs COA 15. DBP vs COA 16. PDIC vs COA 17. COA vs LinkWorth Intl, Inc. 1. Euro-Med Laboratories, Phil., Inc. vs Province of Batangas http://www.scribd.com/doc/96150334/Admin-digests 2. Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals vs COA Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals vs Commission on Audit G.R. No. 169752 September 25, 2007 Facts: PSPCA was incorporated as a juridical entity by virtue of Act No. 1285 by the Philippine Commission in order to enforce laws relating to the cruelty inflicted upon animals and for the protection of and to perform all things which may tend to alleviate the suffering of animals and promote their welfare. In order to enhance its powers, PSPCA was initially imbued with (1) power to apprehend violators of animal welfare laws and (2) share 50% of the fines imposed and collected through its efforts pursuant to the violations of related laws. However, Commonwealth Act No. 148 recalled the said powers. President Quezon then issued Executive Order No. 63 directing the Commission of Public Safety, Provost Marshal General as head of the Constabulary Division of the Philippine Army, Mayors of chartered cities and every municipal president to detail and organize special officers to watch, capture, and prosecute offenders of criminal-cruelty laws. On December 1, 2003, an audit team from the Commission on Audit visited petitioners office to conduct a survey. PSPCA demurred on the ground that it was a private entity and not under the CoAs jurisdiction, citing Sec .2(1), Art. IX of the Constitution.

    Issues: WON the PSPCA is subject to CoAs Audit Authority. Held: No. The charter test cannot be applied. It is predicated on the legal regime established by the 1935 Constitution, Sec.7, Art. XIII. Since the underpinnings of the charter test had been introduced by the 1935 Constitution and not earlier, the test cannot be applied to PSPCA which was incorporated on January 19, 1905. Laws, generally, have no retroactive effect unless the contrary is provided. There are a few exceptions: (1) when expressly provided; (2) remedial statutes; (3) curative statutes; and (4) laws interpreting others. None of the exceptions apply in the instant case. The mere fact that a corporation has been created by a special law doesnt necessarily qualify it as a public corporation. At the time PSPCA was formed, the Philippine Bill of 1902 was the applicable law and no proscription similar to the charter test can be found therein. There was no restriction on the legislature to create private corporations in 1903. The amendments introduced by CA 148 made it clear that PSPCA was a private corporation, not a government agency. PSPCAs charter shows that it is not subject to control or supervision by any agency of the State. Like all private corporations, the successors of its members are determined voluntarily and solely by the petitioner, and may exercise powers generally accorded to private corporations. PSPCAs employees are registered and covered by the SSS at the latters initiative and not through the GSIS. The fact that a private corporation is impressed with public interest does not make the entity a public corporation. They may be considered quasi-public corporations which are private corporations that render public service, supply public wants and pursue other exemplary objectives. The true criterion to determine whether a corporation is public or private is found in the totality of the relation of the corporate to the State. It is public if it is created by the latters own agency or instrumentality, otherwise, it is private. 3. Danville Maritime, Inc. vs COA 4. Laysa vs COA
    FACTS: As a result of an audit of the Fishery Sector Program Fund of the Department of Agriculture, Regional Office No. V was found to not have complied with the rules on bidding, submission of documents to support claim of disbursement. Petitioner, Director of the office, argued that since the Fishery Sector Program is a special program for research and development, bureaucratic adherence to prescribed rules and procedures stifles research and development. HELD: Verification of whether officials of an agency properly discharged their fiscal responsibilities and whether an agency complied with internal audit controls in the collection and disbursement of government funds are part of the functions of the Commission on Audit.

    5. National Electrification vs COA

    6. Caltex Philippines, Inc. vs COA 7. National Housing Authority vs COA 8. Polloso vs Gangan 9. Aguinaldo vs Sandiganbayan 10. F.F. Manacop Construction Co. Inc. vs CA 11. Uy vs COA 12. Parreno vs COA 13. Bustamante vs COA 14. CIR vs COA 15. DBP vs COA 16. PDIC vs COA 17. COA vs LinkWorth Intl, Inc. http://www.scribd.com/doc/132033412/COA-vs-Link-Worth-digested

    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