Hereunder are nine (9) Supreme Court cases that upheld the Commission on Audit’s (COA) decision to disallow in audit certain expenses for being irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconsionable (IUEEU).
1. Honoraria paid to members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) AND Technical Working Group (TWG) in excess of the rates provided for under Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Budget Circular No. 2004-5A dated October 7, 2005 and for procurement activities pertaining to contract not yet awarded to the winning bidder (Joseph Peter Sison, et al. vs. Rogelio Tablang, et al., G.R. No. 177011 dated June5, 2009).
2. Grant of Christmas bonuses, cash gift and other fringe benefits to consultants and to members of the Board who are not salaried officials of the government as they are not considered employees of the hiring agency (COA Decision No. 2006-030 dated April 11, 2006; BCDA vs. COA, G.R. No. 177011 dated June 5, 2009).
3. Grant of amelioration allowance or any similar benefits to private employees of service contractors contrary to Administrative Order No. 367 dated October 10, 1997 (HDMF vs. COA, G.R. No. 157001 dated October 19, 2004).
4. Loyalty service award granted to employees that have not yet rendered the minimum service of ten years in the government required under Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 42, s. 1992 (BCDA vs. COA, G.R. No. 142760 dated August 6, 2002).
5. Payment of Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) and other allowances deemed integrated in the salary per DBM-National Compensation Circular (NCC) No. 59 dated September 30, 1989 and DBM-Corporate Compensation Circular (CCC) No. 10 dated October 2, 1989 (Victoria C. Gutierrez, et al. vs. DBM, G.R. No. 153266 dated March 18, 2010)
6. Grant of food allowance, rice subsidy and health care allowance as there is no law authorizing the grant of such allowance (BFAR Employees Union, R.O. VII vs. COA, G.R. No. 169815 dated August 13, 2008, and Benguet State University vs. COA, G.R. No. 169637 dated June 8, 2007) except health care insurance benefits granted by LGUs since it has the authority (Province of Negros Occidental vs. COA, G.R. No. 182574 dated September 28, 2010).
7. Hiring of private lawyers by the GOCCs to handle their cases and legal matters without prior written conformity and acquiescence of the Solicitor General or the Government Corporate Counsel, as the case may be, and the written concurrence of the COA (Phividec Industrial Authority and Atty. Cesilo Adaza vs. Capitol Steel Corp. and Cheng Han Sui, G.R. No. 155692 dated October 23, 2003).
8. Continuous extension of the services of a foreign consultant to undertake relatively simple supervisory work required for the final stages of the project that can be done by the implementing agency itself or a local consultant (NHA vs. COA, G.R. 101370 dated September 2, 1993).
9. Acceptance of a project as 100 percent complete pursuant to Certificate of Inspection Report when the project was not yet completed (Manuel Leycano, Jr. vs. COA, G.R. No. 154665 dated February 10, 2006).
Source: Commission on Audit
Reactions | Comments (via our Facebook Page)
