The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that Flying Risk Pay (FRP) may be granted only to personnel whose regular duties involve or are directly connected with aerial and flight operations.

In a Jan. 21 en banc decision, the Court upheld with modification the Commission on Audit's (CoA) disallowance of P323,579.50 in Flying Risk Pay paid to Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) officials and employees in 2011.

The recipients held managerial, administrative, and financial positions at CAAP, the state regulator of civil aviation that also operates air navigation services and most of the country's airports, and had traveled as air passengers for meetings, conferences, inspections, and other official activities.

The case arose from a petition filed by CAAP officials and employees led by Concordia S. Pagkaliwangan and Alex B. Balde, who challenged the CoA disallowance. They argued that Republic Act (RA) No. 776, the Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines enacted in 1952, also covered "other authorized personnel" even if their duties were not directly related to flight operations.

The tribunal disagreed, holding that Section 30 of RA 776 covers "rated and/or licensed airmen" and other authorized personnel required to undertake or perform regular and frequent aerial flights in connection with their duties.

"The law itself imposes a functional limitation, grounded not on the designation by or discretion of the agency head, but on the nature of the duties performed and their connection to aerial operations," the Court said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting.

The SC also cited the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual, which excludes passengers from FRP, and noted that the recipients' positions were not among those authorized for the benefit under CAAP's 2011 budget approved by the Department of Budget and Management. The twin findings on statute and budget underscore that hazard-type pay in government must trace to both the governing law and the spending program approved for the agency, rather than to an employee's designation or travel schedule, a line relevant to any government personnel who fly frequently on official business.

The high court ordered the recipients to return the amounts they received, but absolved the approving and certifying officers after finding that they had acted in good faith. The split outcome is consistent with the Court's treatment of past audit cases, in which good faith can shield officials who approved or certified payment but does not erase the recipients' obligation to return public funds. — Mark Joseph M. Sanchez

Source: Bworldonline