COA DISALLOWANCE: P6k PER EMPLOYEE FOR RADO WATCHES-20 YR LOYALTY AWARD

Two hundred (200) recipients of Rado watches at P26k each as Loyalty Award for 20yr Service were notified by the Personnel Administration Department to pay the P6k in excess of P20k allowable amount per recent COA Audit findings.

LBPEA top officers in Manila made appointment with HRMG regarding this matter.

This will definitely create a huge explosion of complaints from all the awardees for the following reasons:

1. the policy on loyalty award is in kind without any amount specified
2. the recipients only received the watches without participation during the selection and bidding process

Per latest message from LBPEA Pres Allan, they just talked with HRMG Head and another memo will be sent informing that deductions will start on April or later; payment will be spread over 6 months to 1 year. LBP already filed a Motion for Reconsideration with COA.

It is good that the management is doing something but then sana hindi muna sila nangingil pending this MR.

Another worth mentioning is that LBPEA was again caught by surprise with this memo. There was no notice either verbal or whatsoever to this effect. I told VP Shirley mukhang wala na yata effect ang CNA natin particularly our right to information because we represent the ranks we should be informed ahead. Dati nauuna muna iniinform ang LBPEA pag may ganitong mga pangyayari bakit ngayon wala na.

pasensya na po cguro sa mga nag "20 Years" na. Timely na binubusisi ng COA ang ating benefits esp yang Token-Watch na yan dahil wala na sila nahihita sa atin. Merong mga other gov't agencies dyan na exhorbitant ang expenses pero wala sila(COA) magawa dahil marunong "magpadulas" ang mga concerned agencies na yan. Like the case of MWSS, bakit hanggang ngayon namamayagpag pa rin sila sa benefits. A reliable source has uttered that a MWSS driver is receiving P37K per month. Nasaan ba ang action ng COA dyan? San ka ba makakita ng ganito, kung cno pa yung nagbibigay ng Billlions sa kaban ng bayan e mababawasan pa ang mga benefits. Kawawang Rank and file ng Land Bank.....

May tama ka dyan Jackal. Noon kasi karamihan ng natatanggap natin e meron ang mga COA. Subukan mong bigyan ng "Relo" ang mga yan, walang disallowance yan.

This move is drastic. Please look into the propriety of the demand for refund. Employees have not asked for it, much less participated in the policy formulation or in the procurement of the watches given to them. They received the memento in good faith.

In a case decided by the SC, the Court declared and held that the disallowed benefits received in good faith need not be reimbursed to the Government (G.R. No. 188635, Jan. 13, 2013). In another case, it was ruled that recipients of disallowed retirement and gratuity pay remuneration need not refund whatever they had received (Veloso v. Commission on Audit).

semaj501 wrote:

This move is drastic. Please look into the propriety of the demand for refund. Employees have not asked for it, much less participated in the policy formulation or in the procurement of the watches given to them. They received the memento in good faith.

In a case decided by the SC, the Court declared and held that the disallowed benefits received in good faith need not be reimbursed to the Government (G.R. No. 188635, Jan. 13, 2013). In another case, it was ruled that recipients of disallowed retirement and gratuity pay remuneration need not refund whatever they had received (Veloso v. Commission on Audit).

Honorable Atty. Semaj501: I truly appreciate your effort in citing this latest SC ruling regarding the issue on COA disallowance. I have gone through it just fast but it is really helpful. I will try to go over it more exhaustively this weekend. Maraming maraming salamat po!

good pm mga bossing, baka kasama ako jan ? year 2008? sana hindi, kung kasama ako magrerefund ibalik ku na lang rado watch ko kasi ang mga binili kung relo hulugan pa eh tig 2000 lang, samakatuwid pag magkacash out aku ng 6000? aba tallong relo na yan at iba iba pa? kahit ibigay na cash yung sinasabi nilang token for 20 years of service? di ku ibibili ng relong ganung kahalaga. at itong rado watch na binigay sa akin natanggal na salamin nya at kaya di ku na masyadong sinusout kc bka matanggal ulit salamin nya at bka mawala pa. ang sinosout ku ngayon, ay yung lumang watch ko na tig 2000 matibay pa mawala man di masyadong masakit. at saka yung binigay na rado ay token yun , binigay dahil yun ang nasusulat regardless kung magkano. salamat po

We requested mgt before that LBPEA must have a seat in the bidding committee. we specifically justified that those bid where rank n file are the end user and receivership of such products. Anong sabi ng mgt? they r invoking their rights, the mgt prerogative rights!. Tlaga namang rights na yan palaging inaabuso. kaya hindi maalis alis sa isip ko ang mag isip ng masama. Magkano kaya nakomisyon nila dito? They can demand big discounts, kasi mga volume po ang transactions dito. Hoy mga sirs, masama pong mag pasasa sa pinaghihirapan ng ibang tao. Mapait po ang KARMA nyan!!!

Kayo kayo naman ang nag formulate ng ganyang policies, ni wala nga tayong kaalam alam kung ano-ano na ang mga pangyayaring nagaganap dyan sa ating mga rewards. Eh para sa akin, bakit tyo mag rerefund? Kayo ang nagkamali, kaya kayo dpat ang magbayad ng refund. Kaya nga kayo nandyan sa position na yan, malaki sweldo, malaki din ang risk and resposibility. Kami nga dito pagnagkamali at na findings, nagbabayad kami. eh Sino bang nagkamali nyan? diba kayo? Aba! dapat magbayad kayo at sabayan na ninyo yong resignation dahil sa kapalpakan na inyong ginagawa, Delikadeza nalang po sana..

Nasa atin po ang magandang justification.. Sana the LBPEA stand should always on the side of the rank in file...

Nasa atin po ang magandang justification.. Sana the LBPEA stand should always on the side of the rank in file at hindi doon sa mga taong nagkakamali..tsk tsk.

SC: Disallowance of Magna Carta Benefits of DOST Employees for 2001 Valid; DOST Employees Allowed to Keep Benefits Based on Good Faith
Posted: February 25, 2013; By Bianca M. Padilla

“No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. A violation of this constitutional edict warrants the disallowance of the payment. However, the refund of the disallowed payment of a benefit granted by law to a covered person, agency, or office of the Government may be barred by the good faith of the approving official and of the recepient.”

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by Brenda L. Nazareth, Regional Director of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), Regional Office No. IX in Zamboanga City, against the Commission on Audit (COA) for lack of merit and affirmed the latter’s decision in COA Case No. 2009-045 dated June 4, 2009. The COA decision sustained the disallowance of subsistence, laundry, hazard and other benefits (Magna Carta benefits) amounting to P3,591,130.36 paid to the covered DOST officials and employees in Regional Office No. IX for the calendar year 2001. It further declared that the covered DOST officials and employees who received the Magma Carta benefits for 2001 are not required to refund the disallowed benefits received.

Earlier, DOST Regional Office No. IX released Magna Carta benefits granted to covered officials and employees based on RA 8439 (An Act Providing a Magna Carta for Scientists, Engineers, Researchers and Other Science and Technology Personnel in Government) for the years 1998 to 2001 despite the absence of a specific appropriation for the purpose in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) as required in RA 8439. After a post-audit was conducted by COA, several Notice of Disallowances were issued disapproving the payment of the Magna Carta benefits. As a result, then DOST Secretary Dr. Filemon Uriarte, Jr., requested the Office of the President (OP) for authority to utilize the DOST’s savings to pay the Magna Carta benefits.

Through a Memorandum dated April 12, 2000, then Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora, acting by authority of the President, approved the request. On the basis of this Memorandum, Petitioner Nazareth lodged an appeal to COA urging the lifting of the disallowance of the paid Magna Carta benefits for the years 1998 – 2001. After several appeals, COA set aside the Notice of Disallowances covering the Magna Carta benefits for 1998 – 2000 but maintained the disallowance for benefits paid in 2001 because the Memorandum dated April 12, 2000 did not authorize the utilization of DOST’s savings for future Magna Carta benefits not included in the request of Secretary Uriarte.

In a 19-page decision penned by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, the Court En Banc found that COA did not commit any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disallowing the Magna Carta benefits paid out in 2001. It ruled that “the Constitution has made COA the guardian of public funds, vesting it with broad powers over all accounts pertaining to government revenue and expenditures and the uses of public funds and property… COA is generally accorded complete discretion in the exercise of its constitutional duty and responsibility to examine and audit expenditures of public funds… The Court has accorded not only respect but also finality to their findings especially when their decisions are not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion.”

The Court clarified that “the April 12, 2000 Memorandum was not a blanket authority from the OP to pay the benefits out of the DOST’s savings. Although the Memoradum was silent as to the period covered by the request for authority to use the DOST’s savings, it could only be read as an authority coviering the limited period CY 1998, CY 1999, and CY 2000. The text of the Memorandum was also bereft of any indication that the authorization was to be indefinitely extended to any calendar year beyond CY 2000.”

It further reminded the public that the prohibition against the transfer of appropriations is the general rule. Thus, the payment of the said the Magna Carta benefits for 2001 without a specific item or provision in the GAA and without due authority from the President to utilize the DOST’s savings in other items for the purpose is repugnant to RA 8439, the Constitution and the re-enacted GAA for 2001.

Nevertheless, the Court opined that the DOST officials who caused the payment of the Magna Carta benefits to the covered officials and employees acted in good faith in the honest belief that there was a firm legal basis for the payment of the benefits. As such, it declared that the disallowed benefits received in good faith need not be reimbursed to the Government as supported by jurisprudence such as De Jesus v. Commission on Audit and Veloso v. Commission on Audit. The De Jesus case held that “in good faith, petitioners need not refund the allowances and bonuses they received but disallowed by the COA” while the Veloso case ruled that recepients of the disallowed retirement and gratuity pay remuneration need not refund whatever they had received. (GR No. 188635, Nazareth v. Villar, January 29, 2013)