200204613, 2003 COMMISSION ON AUDIT CIRCULAR NO.

99-002 June 15, 1999

TO

Heads of Departments; Chiefs of Bureaus, Agencies, and Offices; Managing Heads of GovernmentOwned and/or Controlled Corporations; Local Chief Executives; Assistant Commissioners, Directors, Officers-in-Charge, and Auditors of the Commission on Audit; and All Others Concerned.

SUBJECT

Clarifying the application of COA Circular No. 75-6 dated November 7, 1975 on entitlement to transportation allowance of government officials whose offices have been issued with government vehicles, in accordance with the ruling of the Supreme Court in Aida Domingo vs. Commission on Audit (G.R. No. 112371), promulgated on October 7, 1998.

1.0 PURPOSE

This Circular is issued to clarify the application of COA Circular No. 75-6 dated November 7, 1975 and to implement the Supreme Court ruling in the case "Aida Domingo vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 112371, October 7, 1998" to the effect that government officials whose Offices are issued with motor vehicles, regardless of whether the vehicle is issued to the Office or to the government official himself, shall not be entitled to transportation allowance.

2.0

REGULATIONS ON NON-ENTITLEMENT TO ALLOWANCE TRANSPORTATION

2.1 For the information of all concerned, quoted hereunder is the pertinent portion of the Supreme Court decision in the case "Aida Domingo vs. Commission on Audit", G.R. No. 112371:

"As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, there are two instances when transportation allowance cannot be granted to a government official, as when a government official assigned a vehicle, and when a government official uses government transportation facilities. It is undeniable that several government vehicles were issued to the Regional Office of DSWD in Region V. That the vehicles thereat were issued not to petitioner herself, as Regional Director, but to the Regional Office itself, is of no moment. What is important and decisive is that such vehicles were intended primarily for the official use of subject office and its officials and employees. As maintained by the Solicitor General, whether or not herein petitioner used the vehicle assigned to her office, is not an issue, as it is undeniable that she could have used the said vehicle whenever she wanted to since it was assigned to her office,"

The Court, likewise, ruled:

"In the case under consideration, it must be noted that the provisions of law referred to in the General Appropriations Acts of 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991, utilized the word "assigned" and not "used". Websters Dictionary defines the word "assign" as to "to transfer (property) to another in trust". Had legislative intent been that government officials issued an official vehicle could still collect transportation allowance if they do not actually use subject vehicle, the word "use" instead of "assign" should have been employed."

Based on the above-cited ruling, it is clear that government officials whose offices are issued with motor vehicles are not entitled to transportation allowance whether or not they actually used such vehicles.

2.2 The prohibition against collection of transportation allowance when the office is assigned a vehicle shall apply only to the head of the agency, unless the head of the agency specifically assigns a vehicle to particular officials under him or to a particular unit under said official, when there are more than one vehicle assigned to the agency; in which case, the said official who himself or whose unit under him has been assigned a vehicle shall not be entitled to transportation allowance.

2.3 Where the head of agency does not specifically assign a vehicle to a subordinate official entitled to transportation allowance, or to the unit or division of the said subordinate official, the latter shall be allowed to collect the transportation allowance but shall refund the proportionate amount thereof whenever he avails of a government motor vehicle, corresponding to the number of days he has used the said government vehicle.

3.0 REPEALING CLAUSE

All existing COA issuances inconsistent herewith are repealed/modified accordingly.

4.0

EFFECTIVITY

This Circular shall take effect immediately.

(Sgd.) CELSO D. GAGAN Chairman

(Sgd.) RAUL C. FLORES Commissioner (Sgd.) EMMANUEL M. DALMAN Commissioner COMMISSION ON AUDIT CIRCULAR NO. 2000-005 October 4, 2000

TO

: Heads of Departments; Chiefs of Bureaus, Agencies, and Offices; Managing Heads of Government-owned and/or Controlled Corporations; Local Chief Executives; Assistant Commissioners, Directors, Officers-in-Charge, and Auditors of the Commission on Audit; and all others concerned

SUBJECT : Clarifying the implementation of COA Circular No. 99-002 dated June 15, 1999 in view of Section 41 of the General Provisions, General Appropriations Act, FY 2000 and its effect on the Supreme Court Decision in Aida Domingo vs. Commission on Audit (G.R. No. 112371, October 7, 1998).

1.0

This Circular is issued to clarify the effect of Section 41, of the General Provisions, General Appropriations Act, FY 2000, on COA Circular No. 99-002 dated June 15, 1999 which was issued to bring into effect the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case entitled "Aida Domingo vs. COA."

2.0

REGULATIONS ON NON-ENTITLEMENT

2.1 Section 41 of the General Provisions, GAA FY 2000 provides in part: "The transportation allowance herein authorized shall not be granted to officials who use government motor transportation. x x x." [emphasis added] This provision was a restatement of the GAA of the previous years except that the words "assigned a government vehicle" were deleted from the present GAA. The deletion cannot be for no purpose at all since this was made right after the

promulgation of the Supreme Court decision, supra, which held that: "Had the legislative intent been that government officials issued an official vehicle could still collect transportation allowance if they do not actually use subject vehicle, the word "use" instead of "assign" should have been employed." Based on the above-cited provision and decision, there can be no other interpretation but that the legislature wanted to negate the effect of the ruling in favor of those officials who are or whose offices are assigned government vehicles but who do not use the same.

2.2 In view of the foregoing, the prohibition against the use of government vehicles by officials provided with transportation allowance under Paragraph VI of Memorandum Circular No. 75-6 pursuant to Section 14, Presidential Decree 733 is hereby restated. Heads of agencies whose offices have been assigned vehicles and those officers to whom such heads specifically assigned a vehicle when there are more than one vehicle issued to the agency shall not be deprived of their transportation allowance on that basis alone.

2.3 Whenever an official or employee entitled to transportation allowance uses the government vehicle issued to his office, a corresponding proportionate reduction on his transportation allowance shall be made.

2.4 To ensure strict compliance with the prohibition against the use of government motor vehicles by those who are already enjoying transportation allowance benefits, all concerned are hereby enjoined to observe the existing regulations involving the marking of government vehicles, the use of RP plates, and the proper filling up of the corresponding trip tickets.

2.5 All unit auditors are accordingly directed to see tot the implementation of this Circular in their respective unit.

3.0

REPEALING CLAUSE COA Circular No. 99-002 and all other existing issuances inconsistent herewith are repealed/modified accordingly.

4.0

This Circular shall take effect immediately.

(Sgd.) CELSO D. GAGAN Chairman

(Sgd.) RAUL C. FLORES Commissioner

(Sgd.) EMMANUEL M. DALMAN Commissioner

[ << Back ]