Sunday, July 13, 2025

Gov’t auditors disallow P6M incentives to NIA personnel

THE Commission on Audit has affirmed the 2015 ruling of the COA Corporate Government Sector – Cluster 5 that sustained the notices of disallowance (NDs) issued against the payout of P6 million in cash incentives to officials and employees of the National Irrigation Administration – Regional Office 8 in 2011.

In its 15-page en banc decision, the COA denied the petitions to lift the disallowance but granted the prayer of lower-ranked officers not to be held solidarily liable for the entire amount on the ground that they had no participation in approving and certifying the payment of the Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) incentives.

The commission held that cashiers Elisea Meracap, Rebecca Badidles, and Ireneo de Castro; administrative service officers Erlinda Superable and Fe Lumen; processor Violeta Basul; and corporate accountant Anacleta Velasco are excluded among persons held solidarily liable but are still required to refund only the amounts they received as part of the incentive.

The ruling was signed by COA chairperson Gamaliel Cordoba and Commissioners Roland Café Pondoc and Mario Lipana.

Auditors disallowed the CNA incentives because NIA Region 8 exceeded the amount recommended by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Budget Circular No. 2011-5.

Remaining liable for the entire amount are NIA Region 8 regional manager Romeo Quiza and division manager Gloria Sevilla.

“The total amount of P5,996,000 paid as CNA Incentives to NIA personnel were disallowed in audit for lack of legal basis because the grant thereof was in excess of the P25,000 limit per qualified employee,” the commission said.

Even the claim of good faith by the NIA officials failed to persuade the COA en banc as it noted that the rules and conditions were already in place before the CNA incentives were approved.

“Jurisprudence holds that absent any showing of bad faith and malice, there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. However, this presumption must fail in the presence of an explicit rule that was violated,” the commission said.

Author

- Advertisement -

Share post: