Back

Abellanosa, et al. vs. COA and NHA [CONCURRING OPINION, CAGUIOA, J.]

GENEROSO G. ABELLANOSA, CARMENCITA D. PINEDA, BERNADETTE R. LAIGO, MENELIO D. RUCAT, AND DORIS A. SIAO, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 185806 | 2020-11-17

CONCURRING OPINION
 
 
CAGUIOA, J.:
 
I agree that the 2012 Decision correctly upheld the Notice of Disallowance.[1] I write separately only to clarify the difference of Rule 2c and Rule 2d of the Rules on Return in Madera v. COA[2] (Madera) as the basis for absolving the petitioners from the liability of returning the disallowed amount of P401,284.39.
 
I take the opportunity to expound on the proper interpretation of "amounts x x x genuinely given in consideration of services rendered"[3] which are the proper exceptions to the general rule of Rule 2c — that payees must return...