FROM 2004 to 2010, the Board of Directors of the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) passed several board resolutions giving themselves the right and the budget to buy new cars.
In a decision released last week, the Commission on Audit affirmed the 2012 notice of disallowance issued against the car plan benefit of the PNCC Board for being irregular.
The ruling denied the petition for review filed by former PNCC directors Garth Noel Tolentino, Enrique Cuejilo Jr., Ottomama Benito, Ma. Theresa Defensor, Guillermo Hernandez, Jeremy Parula, Antonio Vilar, Roy Eduardo T. Lucero, Fermin S. Lusung, Elberto E. Emphasis, Arthur N. Aguilar, and Marcin V. Paule.
The commission said the board members were only entitled to receive per diems of P1,000 each for actual attendance at any meeting — no more, no less. It added that the only ground for giving a director additional compensation is if he/she is specifically designated to perform an executive function.
“The amended by-laws of PNCC is clear that each director shall be entitled to a fee or per diem of P1,000 for actual attendance at any meeting of the BOD for each day of session. As the petitioners failed to present evidence that they are performing executive functions or any special service, they are not entitled to the car plan benefit,” the COA said.
By the same decision, the commission junked the petitioners’ assertion that the PNCC is a private corporation and is not covered by COA’s jurisdiction.
“Indubitably, PNCC is a government corporation and the conversion of its debts to government equity is a form of investment of public funds. Its funds being public in character, PNCC cannot exempt itself from the audit jurisdiction of this Commission,” it pointed out.
It also clarified the government is not covered by estoppel in relation to the correction of errors made by its officers, particularly where government funds and resources are concerned.
“Thus, COA is not estopped from questioning, in the process of post-audit, the previous acts of its officials which are erroneous and irregular,” it stressed.
Invoking the Supreme Court ruling in the 2015 case of Silang vs. COA, the commission said the obligation to refund the disallowed benefit falls upon those who approved its payment and each person who received a share of the amount.
