SC disallows PhilRice car benefit scheme
By JOAHNA LEI CASILAO, GMA Integrated News Published March 19, 2024 6:54pm The Supreme Court has disallowed the monthly amortization payments for private vehicles under the car benefit plan of the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice). In a decision promulgated in March 2023, the SC affirmed the finding of the Commission on Audit (COA) that […]
T Kauer 
By JOAHNA LEI CASILAO, GMA Integrated News
The Supreme Court has disallowed the monthly amortization payments for private vehicles under the car benefit plan of the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice).
In a decision promulgated in March 2023, the SC affirmed the finding of the Commission on Audit (COA) that the payments were irregular but ruled that the petitioners, who were former employees of PhilRice, could not be held liable to return the amount.
“The additional allowance pursuant to the car benefit plan of the PhilRice, in the guise of monthly amortization payments of petitioners’ private vehicles, is utterly devoid of legal basis,” the SC said as it granted in part the petition of the petitioners.
“Consequently, the COA did not act with grave abuse of discretion in rendering the challenged decisions, which, on the contrary, appear to be in accord with the facts and applicable law and jurisprudence,” it added.
In 2008, PhilRice crafted the car plan program, which was meant to benefit priority officials and senior staff members, including those involved in the development and extension of the Rice Self-Sufficiency Project and other operations of PhilRice.
The scheme acted as a rental plan under which qualified employees may procure the vehicle of their choice through the financing scheme of the Philippine National Bank for three years, payable on a monthly installment basis.
In 2013, state auditors issued 26 notices of disallowances with an amount of P10 million against PhilRice for “expenses incurred during the trips made using rented private vehicles.
The Court said all allowances and fringe benefits granted on top of the basic salary are deemed integrated into the standardized salary rates, with the exception of representation and transportation allowances, clothing and laundry allowances, subsistence allowances of marine officers and crew on board government vessels and hospital personnel, hazard pay, and allowances of foreign service personnel stationed abroad, under Republic Act 6758.
Meanwhile, the Court cited Madera v. COA, where the SC ruled that officers who acted with good faith are not civilly liable to return the disallowed amounts.
“Here, while petitioners approved and authorized the payment of government funds… nevertheless, the exceptional circumstances surrounding the case… tenaciously show they acted in good faith and were solely propelled by a valid and genuine cause— the prevention of ‘brain drain’ within the institution through a more cost-effective approach,” it said. — VBL, GMA Integrated News
:quality(85):upscale()/2023/11/13/833/n/1922283/6debaba66552721d8abec4.99129921_.jpg?#){kind=small}
:quality(85):upscale()/2023/11/30/761/n/1922283/2533dd336568c3817acd04.58558834_.jpg?#){kind=small}
