SC upholds COA’s flagging of ‘flying risk pay’ for Caap execs, personnel

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has affirmed the Commission on Audit’s (COA) disapproval of more than P300,000 in flying risk pay for nine Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (Caap) officers and staff whose tasks were managerial or administrative in nature and not related to actual aircraft operations.

The high tribunal’s ruling upheld the COA’s issuance in 2021 of a notice of disallowance covering P323,580 in flying risk pay for the Caap officials and personnel, including its head at the time, Director General Ramon Gutierrez.

READ: ‘Mayday, Mayday:’ CAAP employees protest nixed salary increase

Article continues after this advertisement

The Supreme Court cited Section 30 of Republic Act No. 776, or the Caap law, and said that the COA was correct in disallowing the “excessive and unlawful payment” of the benefit.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

No basis

“The disallowance itself is proper, as the payments lacked statutory basis and were granted to individuals who were not legally entitled thereto,” read part of the 22-page decision promulgated on Jan. 21 this year and released publicly only recently.

At the same time, the high court ordered the nine to return the amounts they received.

The case stemmed from a petition for certiorari filed by Caap employees against the various COA issuances in 2022 and 2023 that affirmed a 2013 notice of disallowance covering the payment.

READ: COA affirms disallowance of OVP’s P73-M confidential expenses in 2022

Article continues after this advertisement

The COA found that the amount identified as flying risk pay was tagged as “irregular expenditures.” Among those who received the benefit was Gutierrez, who had also approved and certified the payment as valid.

Under the Caap law, licensed air staff and other authorized agency personnel whose job requires work-related flights are entitled to additional compensation equivalent to 50 percent of their base pay as long as they accumulate a total of at least four flying hours per month.

Article continues after this advertisement

But the high tribunal stressed that the covered Caap officers and staff could not be classified as “airmen” whose duties are “inherent in the operation of the aircraft while in flight” under the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual.

Purely incidental

“While it is true that their duties occasionally require travel, these are purely incidental to the discharge of their administrative responsibilities. Records show their travels consisted of attending international conferences and meetings, inspecting airports and facilities, verifying legal cases, and overseeing projects and ceremonies in various domestic and foreign locations,” it noted.

It added they boarded the flights merely as passengers to reach their work-related destinations.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

However, the Supreme Court absolved Gutierrez and other Caap officers of liability over the approval of the hazard pay as this was done “in good faith.” /cb