A retired labor attache’s neglect to demand payment for differentials in payment of allowances during his stint abroad has cost him nearly P2-million in money claims from government.

In a recent decision, the Commission on Audit-Commission Proper (COA-CP) denied the Petition for Money Claim filed by Leopoldo B. De Jesus, a former labor attache, for payment of overseas allowances (OA) and living quarter allowance differentials (LQA) during his postings in Kuwait.

De Jesus has sought payment totaling P1,993,862.34 representing the difference between the rate of US dollars and Kuwaiti dinar of the total amount of OA and LQA which he received. The allowances were paid to him in US dollars.

He filed the petition after reportedly learning that a fellow retired labor attache, Cenon Wesley Gacutan was granted by COA the claim for LQA and OA differential based on Administrative Order No. 56 that provides that salaries and allowances of foreign service posts personnel be paid based on collection rate.

In the case of De Jesus, he received US dollars instead of the collection rate of Kuwaiti Dinar, during his posting in Kuwait from 2003 to 2008.

He insisted that he was entitled to the differential between the US dollar and the Kuwaiti Dinar amounting to P1,993,862.34.

The COA-CP denied the petition, pointing out that De Jesus’ claim was already “barred by prescription and laches.”

The state audit panel pointed out that payment of LQA and OA for foreign service personnel is an obligation of government under Republic Act 7175, thus, payment should be “brought within ten years from the time the right thereto accrues.”

The COA-CP noted that De Jesus filed his claim for payment on May 2, 2018, which is more than ten years since the differential should have accrued in October 2003.

“The same is true with respect to his claim to OA and LQA differential fro the years 2004 to 2007. Hence, his claim for OA and LQA differential for period of October, 2003 to October 2007 already prescribed,” the two-man panel composed of Chairman Michael Aguinaldo and Roland Pondoc ruled.

The Commission found De Jesus “guilty of laches” which is defined as “the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier.” According to the panel, De Jesus merely filed the petition after finding precedent in the COA decision on GAcutan.

His failure or neglect to exercise his right for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time constitutes abandonment. Thus he is now estopped by laches to assert such right,” the COA-CP stated.