Manila Bulletin
Philippines
COA orders LWUA officials to return P25.2 million in disallowed allowances
Philippines
COA orders LWUA officials to return P25.2 million in disallowed allowances
COA orders LWUA officials to return P25.2 million in disallowed allowances
Published Dec 20, 2019 12:00 am
By Ben Rosario
Officials of the Local Water Utilities Administration were ordered to return over P25.2 million in disallowed allowances granted them 10 years ago.
Commission on Audit (MANILA BULLETIN)
In a decision released recently, the three-man Commission on Audit-Commission Proper dismissed a petition for review filed by the petitioners who tried to justify the release of the amount as Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EME) of the then officials of the state run water agency.
The CoA-CP said it had to junk the petition for review filed by Rebecca A. Barbo and Edwin Ruiz for being filed beyond the reglementary period allowed under the law.
Barbo and Ruiz have sought a reversal of the decision that the COA-Corporate Government Sector released on October 1, 2014.
The decision affirmed the Notice of Disallowance(ND) issued in 2011 on the payment of the EME given to LWUA officials.
Chaired by Chairman Michael Aguinaldo, the COA-CP declared that it can no longer consider the petition because the petitioner “had already exhausted the reglementary period of six months or 180 days” from the release of the ND.
The panel stressed that the decision had already become final and executory pursuant to Presidential Decreee 1445.
“Having attained finality, the assailed decision is immutable and unalterable, and may not longer be modified in any respect,” the COA-CP ruled.
Nevertheless, the three-man quasi-judicial body pointed out that it would have also thumbed down the petition for review even if it is decided based on merit.
According to the COA-CP the certification executed by the officials that they had indeed received their EME claim “cannot be construed as “other document evidencing disbursement.”
Citing jurisprudence in the case of Arnaldo M. Espinas et al vs COA, the COA-CP noted that expenses for EME should be supported by receipts or other documents evidencing “disbursements.”
“Accordingly, since petitioners’ reimbursement claims were solely supported by this “certification”, the COA properly disallowed said claims for failure to comply with COA Circular NO. 2006-01,” the Court ruling cited by the COA-CP stated.
Commission on Audit (MANILA BULLETIN)
In a decision released recently, the three-man Commission on Audit-Commission Proper dismissed a petition for review filed by the petitioners who tried to justify the release of the amount as Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EME) of the then officials of the state run water agency.
The CoA-CP said it had to junk the petition for review filed by Rebecca A. Barbo and Edwin Ruiz for being filed beyond the reglementary period allowed under the law.
Barbo and Ruiz have sought a reversal of the decision that the COA-Corporate Government Sector released on October 1, 2014.
The decision affirmed the Notice of Disallowance(ND) issued in 2011 on the payment of the EME given to LWUA officials.
Chaired by Chairman Michael Aguinaldo, the COA-CP declared that it can no longer consider the petition because the petitioner “had already exhausted the reglementary period of six months or 180 days” from the release of the ND.
The panel stressed that the decision had already become final and executory pursuant to Presidential Decreee 1445.
“Having attained finality, the assailed decision is immutable and unalterable, and may not longer be modified in any respect,” the COA-CP ruled.
Nevertheless, the three-man quasi-judicial body pointed out that it would have also thumbed down the petition for review even if it is decided based on merit.
According to the COA-CP the certification executed by the officials that they had indeed received their EME claim “cannot be construed as “other document evidencing disbursement.”
Citing jurisprudence in the case of Arnaldo M. Espinas et al vs COA, the COA-CP noted that expenses for EME should be supported by receipts or other documents evidencing “disbursements.”
“Accordingly, since petitioners’ reimbursement claims were solely supported by this “certification”, the COA properly disallowed said claims for failure to comply with COA Circular NO. 2006-01,” the Court ruling cited by the COA-CP stated.