OFFICIALS of two government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) have been required by the Commission on Audit to refund P3.19 million spent on chocolates, coffee, lechon (roast pig), and flowers.
In separate decisions released this week, the COA Commission Proper rejected appeals filed by the National Tobacco Administration (NTA) and the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA, formerly Public Estates Authority) asking it to lift notices of disallowance issued earlier against their transactions.
Records showed that in 2013, the NTA purchased 90 kilograms of chocolate, 200 kilograms of coffee, and 14 coffee vendo machines for P350,000.
NTA executives said the procurement was part of its health program in compliance with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 38 urging all public offices to implement a wellness or fitness program.
The audit team issued a notice of disallowance on November 18, 2014 tagging the purchases as “unnecessary expenditures.”
The COA denied NTA’s petition for review dated January 26, 2017, noting that it was filed beyond the 180 days allowed for appeal and that the appellants did not offer an acceptable justification for not meeting the deadline.
However, even had the petition reached the COA CP on time, it said its ruling would not have been any different.
“At any rate, even if the appeal is to be decided on the merits, it would still be denied because Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 38, s. of 1992, which was the basis of NTA for the procurement of the coffee vendo machines, is clear. It only covers physical and mental fitness programs that seek to attain long-term health through exercises and related physical fitness activities. Coffee vendo machines are not activities,” the commission said.
In the case of the PRA, the COA affirmed the disallowance against the P2.84 million reimbursement of extraordinary expenses (EE) granted to former PEA chairperson Ramon Revilla Sr. in 2011.
Auditors said Revilla, as chairperson of the PEA Board of Directors, was not entitled to receive EE hence the allowance was contrary to Executive order No. 24 prescribing the compensation of GOCC board members and Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Memorandum Circular No. 2002-02.
Likewise, they noted that the liquidation showed expenditure items that “do not appear necessary” and unrelated to the PRA’s mandate.
“The Chairperson of the BOD is not entitled to the discretionary fund or EE but only to per diem for meetings actually attended. In this case, the actual expenses charged against the Chairperson’s budget for EE do not appear necessary to the discharge of his functions as Chairperson of PRA, e.g., rice donations, floral arrangements, lechon, etc.,” the COA pointed out.
Even if Revilla had already passed away on June 25, 2020, the COA said the government still needs to be paid the sum of disallowance.
“The liability is not extinguished by the death of the payee or one of the persons liable, as settlement of the disallowance can be made by his estate or by other persons determined liable in the ND,” the COA said.
Other than Revilla’s, the COA said other agency officials who authorized the transactions are also jointly liable to refund the disallowed amount.
