OFFICIALS of the state-owned University of Rizal System (URS) have failed to persuade the Commission on Audit (COA) to recall a notice of disallowance issued in 2014 against the payment of P13.82 million as “economic incentive” to 717 personnel.
State auditors had disallowed the fund release following the discovery that the money came from the university’s special trust fund (STF) rather than from savings generated from “suggestions, inventions, or superior accomplishments” of agency personnel.
The audit team tagged the URS Board of Regents as the one responsible for approving Resolution No. 044-417-13 that allowed the use of the special trust fund for monetary awards contrary to the rules set under Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 1.
Held liable in the notice of disallowance (ND) were Sen. Pia Cayetano, Pasig City Rep. Roman Romulo, Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Commissioner Nona Ricafort, National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) Region 4A director Agnes Espinas, and Department of Science and Technology (DOST) Region 4A director Alexander Madrigal.
Also included were representatives from the URS Alumni Federation, Faculty Federation, and Student Federation; URS president and Board of Regents (BoR) member Marita Canapi, vice president for administration and finance Ronnie Parica, internal auditor Marina Reyes, and university officers and employees who received the cash incentive.
In the appeal memorandum, Canapi and other URS executives argued that RA 9157 or the University Charter authorized the BoR to grant the disallowed benefits.
They likewise invoked the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official functions and asked that the requirement to refund the incentives be set aside on the ground that it was granted and received in good faith.
Auditors however noted that the money was charged against the internally generated income of the university for 2013 even if the said funds were specifically designated by RA 8292 (Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997) for “instruction, research, extension, or other programs/projects of the university.”
“The above provisions categorically state that the STF generated by the university may be used only for expenditures pertaining to the primary objectives of the state universities and colleges to attain quality education and that it can only be used for the purpose for which it is collected,” the COA pointed out.
Categorically, the commission held that it is irregular to use the special trust fund for the payment of economic incentives because the latter is “not related to the academic program of the university.”
It also rejected the assertion of good faith, noting that there was a violation of an explicit rule as provided in the Administrative Code of 1987.
“Thus, the approving and certifying officers responsible for payment of the economic incentives should be held liable for the disallowance. By the nature of their functions, they should have been aware of and complied with existing laws, rules, and guidelines in the grant of said incentives,” the COA added.
On the other hand, passive recipients of the cash incentive are only required to return the sum they received.
