CoA disallows P3.3-M expenses claim

THE Commission on Audit (CoA) upholding the disallowance of the P3.3-million payment of training and traveling expenses of Mario Villasan, then-general manager of the Cabanatuan City Water District (CCWD).

In a decision dated September 27, CoA’s Commission Proper denied for lack of merit the petition for review

- tion for review bereft of merit for failure of [then-]GM [General Manager] Villasan to observe” Administrative Order 103; Section 7 of Executive Order 248, as amended by EO 248-A; EO 298; and Section 2 of EO 459," the commission said.

“The austerity measures imposed on foreign travel seek to reduce government expenditures. Thus, the proviso ‘ urgent and extremely necessary, within minimum expenditure and are ex to the country.’ This requirement should not be taken loosely lest the law and regulations will be circumvented. As aptly observed by the [then] RD, the attendance of [then] GM Villasan in training abroad which is in violation of the austerity measures in the government."

RD refers to the then-director of

According to the decision, records showed that the CCWD’s then-Board of Directors (BOD), through Board Resolution 2012-012, supposedly authorized him to attend the Advance Management Program of Harvard Business School in the US.

The then- BOD also supposedly authorized the disbursement of P3,315,219 for Villasan's travel and training expenses.

“On post-audit, the [then-]Audit Team Leader (ATL) and the [then-] Supervising Auditor [SA], CCWD, issued ND 2013-005 dated July 1, 2013 on the payment of traveling and training expenses of [then-]GM Villasan in Boston, USA, for alleged lack of legal basis and proper authority, in violation of CoA Circular 85-55A dated September 8, 1985 and Administrative Order (AO) 103 dated August 31, 2004 of the body’s decision stated.

A notice of disallowance (ND) informs those concerned of their participation in the transactions disapproved on audit that they should refund the amount indicated in the notice.

The same decision said petitioners filed an appeal memorandum on October 16, 2013 wherein they “argued that the Local Water Utilities Administration [LWUA] regulation on travel abroad applies only to the BOD of water districts, not to GMs. They averred that LWUA has no authority, but rather it is the BOD of CCWD [that] has the right to approve the GM’s travel and training expenses. They also posited that the amount spent for training was not exorbitant, excessive, or unconscionable since [then-]GM Villasan deserved the best training available here and abroad from schools that are reputable and at par with world standards.”

decision dated March 3, 2014, which petition for review.

According to the CoA Commission Proper’s decision, the petitioners argued in the petition for review that “[t]he grant of training and traveling expenses to petitioner Villasan is valid because it was authorized by the [then-]BOD of CCWD.”

They also argued that AO 103 does not apply to his travel and training.

But the Commission Proper denied the petition for review and, accord 3’s March 3, 2014 decision.