Title
Supreme Court
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 210905
Decision Date
Nov 17, 2020
COA disallowed OWWA's Incentive Allowance to POEA employees, ruling it violated R.A. 6758 and trust fund rules, requiring refunds and holding officials liable.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 191805)

Applicable Law

The decisions in this case were governed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution and pertinent laws including Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6758, which is the Compensation and Position Classification Act, and various Presidential Decrees and Executive Orders relating to the functions of the POEA and OWWA.

Background Events

The Welfare Fund for Overseas Workers was established in 1977 through Letter of Instruction No. 537, with subsequent reorganizations leading to the establishment of the OWWA. The POEA, created in 1982, is tasked with overseeing overseas employment policies. Over the years, various resolutions and joint memoranda between POEA and OWWA formalized the collection process of OWWA fees by POEA and the subsequent payment of an incentive allowance to POEA employees for these collections.

Facts Leading to Disallowance

In 2004, an anonymous tip alleging improper disbursements led the COA to investigate the incentive allowances paid to POEA officials and employees. The COA found that such payments were unlawful under R.A. No. 6758, which prohibits additional compensation unless specifically authorized. It concluded that collecting OWWA dues is part of POEA's official functions, thus disallowing payments for it.

COA's Decisions and Rationale

The COA determined that the incentive allowance violated section 12 of R.A. No. 6758, which requires that all allowances for government employees be absorbed into their basic salary. It held that the payments were not justifiable because they constituted remuneration for duties that were inherently part of POEA's responsibilities. The COA also ruled that the fund used was a private trust fund for Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) and could not be utilized for such allowances.

Petitioners' Arguments

POEA and OWWA contended that the incentive allowance was sanctioned by previous resolutions and laws, arguing that it was essential for encouraging fee collection. They claimed that since the allowance existed prior to the implementation of R.A. No. 6758, it had become a vested right. They also maintained that the funds came from operating income rather than the Welfare Fund, and thus did not constitute double compensation since they were essentially a bonus.

COA's Response to Petitioners' Arguments

The COA rejected these arguments, reinforcing that the core function of collecting OWWA fees was aligned with POEA's statutory duties. It held that even if the collection of OWWA fees was not explicitly stated in POEA’s mandate, it was a necessary function. Furthermore, the argument that funding did not violate the provisions of R.A. No. 6758 was dismissed as contributions from the trust fund were legally restricted from being used for additional compensation payments to government employees.

Court's Decision

The Court upheld the COA’s decision, ruling that the disallowed payments were illegal, confirming that POEA officials who authorized the payments, along with the employees who received them, must reimburse the amounts. The Court emphasized that public offic

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.