Practice question
A GOCC has long paid an allowance that is established to violate a binding government compensation restriction. It stops the payment to comply with that restriction. Employees argue that duration alone creates a vested right to continued unlawful payment. Under PNCC v. Erece, Jr., which analysis is correct?
- Every long practice overrides a binding legal prohibition.
- The non-diminution rule does not compel continued compensation prohibited by law; duration alone creates no vested right contrary to law.
- The allowance necessarily becomes lawful after two years.
- Every COA observation automatically proves every payment unlawful without examining the governing rule.
- The employees automatically acquire ownership of the GOCC.
Legal references
- https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/69584 — Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Erece, Jr., GR 235673, July 22, 2024, main decision.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.