25/03/2024
SC Disallows Irregular Car Plan Scheme by PhilRice |
The Supreme Court has disallowed the monthly amortization payments for private vehicles under the car benefit plan implemented by the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) for not being among the benefits allowed under the law.
In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the Supreme Court En Banc denied the petition for certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the Rules of Court, filed by Sophia T. Borja, et al. (petitioners). The petition challenged the rulings of the Commission on Audit (COA) disallowing PhilRice’s payment of the amortization of private cars for being highly irregular.
In resolving the present petition, the Court affirmed the COA’s findings that the payments were irregular, but nevertheless excused petitioners’ civil liability to return the disallowed amounts.
The Court ruled that under Section 12 of RA 6758, all allowances and fringe benefits granted on top of the basic salary, with the exception of representation and transportation allowances, clothing and laundry allowances, subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels and hospital personnel, hazard pay, and allowances of foreign service personnel stationed abroad, are deemed integrated into the standardized salary rates.
Thus, the additional allowance pursuant to the car benefit plan of the PhilRice, in the guise of monthly amortization payments of petitioners’ private vehicles, is utterly devoid of legal basis, held the Court.
The Court also noted that petitioners have impliedly conceded on the irregularity of the subject benefits, stating in their petition that the car rental plan had been abandoned prior to the issuance of the NDs, upon the recommendation of the state auditors stationed in PhilRice.
As to petitioners’ liability, the Court held that under the guidelines laid down in the 2020 case Madera v. COA (Madera Rules of Return), approving and certifying officers who acted in good faith, and with the diligence of a good father of the family are not civilly liable to return the disallowed amounts.
Rule 2(c) of the Madera Rules of Return further provides that recipients are liable to return the disallowed amounts received by them, unless they are able to show that the amounts received were genuinely given in consideration of services rendered.
Recipients may also be excused under Rule 2(d) of the Madera Rules of Return based on undue prejudice, social justice considerations, and other bona fide exceptions as may be determined on a case-to-base basis.
Applying the rules to petitioners, who are approving/certifying officers as well as recipients, the Court found that petitioners showed that they acted in good faith in authorizing the payment for the amortizations, “propelled by a valid and genuine cause—the prevention of ‘brain drain’ within [PhilRice] through a more cost-effective approach.” Thus, petitioners, in their capacity as approving/certifying officers, are excused from liability.
Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-disallows-irregular-car-plan-scheme-by-philrice/. Read G.R. No. 252092 at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/252092-sophia-t-borja-ma-ethel-p-gibe-mary-grace-dg-corpuz-joy-t-agudia-aurea-c-cosio-wilfredo-b-collado-myrna-d-malabayabas-evelyn-f-javier-eduardo-jimmy-p-quilang-rizal-g-corales/.
