The Supreme Court partly granted a Petition for Certiorari and upheld the Commission on Audit's (COA) disallowance of Flying Risk Pay (FRP) worth PHP 323,579.50 paid to Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) officials and personnel for 2011. However, the Court modified the ruling by absolving the approving and certifying officers from solidary liability, while holding the recipients individually liable to return the amounts they received.
The Case
The case questioned COA Decision No. 2022-401 dated January 28, 2022, and Resolution No. 2024-027 dated October 26, 2023, which affirmed Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 13-002 (2011) dated March 18, 2013. That ND disallowed the payment of Flying Risk Pay to CAAP officials and personnel for 2011 in the total amount of PHP 323,579.50.
FRP payments are additional amounts granted to selected CAAP officials and personnel who take flights to international and/or domestic destinations in connection with their official CAAP functions. They are granted at the discretion of the Administrator-CAAP's chief of office, as authorized under Section 30 of Republic Act No. 776, the "Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines."
In 2004, COA disallowed CAAP's FRP payments, but in Decision No. 2009-125 dated November 18, 2009, the COA Proper lifted the disallowance. It underscored that entitlement to FRP is not limited to rated and/or licensed airmen, but shall also extend to such other authorized CAAP personnel.
The payments in the present case were granted on January 17, 2011, through Board Resolution No. 2011-007, Series of 2011, which authorized the CAAP Director General to grant FRP/flying pay to qualified personnel who rendered at least four hours of flight per month at 50% of their basic monthly salary. Col. Ramon S. Gutierrez, then Director General of CAAP, issued Authority Order (AO) No. 320-11 dated November 2, 2011, granting the FRP payments to officials and personnel occupying different positions.
The Issue
The Court addressed whether COA properly disallowed the FRP payments, and whether the approving and certifying officers, as well as the recipient-payees, should be held liable to return the disallowed amount.
The Ruling
The Court ruled that COA properly disallowed the payment of FRP to CAAP officials and personnel in the amount of PHP 323,579.50, as the payments lacked statutory basis and were granted to individuals who were not legally entitled thereto. However, the Court found that COA erred in holding the approving and certifying officers solidarily liable.
In its dispositive portion, the Court declared: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Certiorari is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision No. 2022-401 dated January 28, 2022, and the Resolution No. 2024-027 dated October 26, 2023, of the Commission on Audit are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the approving and certifying officers of the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines are ABSOLVED from the solidary liability to return the net disallowed amount. Meanwhile, the recipients of the flying risk pay in the total amount of PHP 323,579.50 REMAIN individually liable for the return of the disallowed amounts they respectively received."
The Court also directed that copies of the Decision be furnished to the Congress of the Philippines for their information and guidance.
By the Numbers
- Disallowed amount: PHP 323,579.50
- ND No. 13-002 (2011), dated March 18, 2013
- COA Decision No. 2022-401, dated January 28, 2022
- COA Resolution No. 2024-027, dated October 26, 2023
- COA Decision No. 2009-125, dated November 18, 2009
- Board Resolution No. 2011-007, Series of 2011, dated January 17, 2011
- AO No. 320-11, dated November 2, 2011
- FRP rate: 50% of basic monthly salary; minimum four flying hours per month
- G.R. No. 272465
The Court's Reasoning
The Court found that the approving and certifying officers acted in good faith. It noted that as a constitutionally-mandated auditing institution, COA's pronouncements carry a persuasive and controlling weight in matters of public expenditure, so COA Decision No. 2009-125 supplied a colorable legal basis for granting the FRP at the time. It also observed that Section 30 of Republic Act No. 776 is susceptible of differing interpretations, and COA's construction—though later rejected by the Court—represented a plausible textual reading at the time. Absent any showing of bad faith, malice, or gross negligence, the officers were absolved from liability.
Conversely, the Court held that the recipient-payees are required to return the amounts they received in accordance with the principle of unjust enrichment or solutio indebiti, as declared in Madera. The payees could not invoke that the FRP was received in consideration of services rendered, because they were not entitled to the FRP precisely because their positions did not involve the performance of aerial flight duties as contemplated under Section 30 of Republic Act No. 776. The absence of legal entitlement negated any claim that the amount received was legitimately earned.
The Court further acknowledged its use of the terms airman and airmen when quoting Republic Act No. 776, in fidelity to the law's language, while emphasizing that gender-fair language is essential to ensure inclusivity in the aviation sector. It respectfully urged Congress to revisit Republic Act No. 776 and consider adopting gender-sensitive and gender-fair terminology.
Source: Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 272465, penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.