Coa C99-002

COMMISSION ON AUDIT CIRCULAR NO.
99-002
June 15, 1999
TO : Heads of Departments; Chiefs of Bureaus, Agencies, and Offices; Managing

Heads of Government-Owned and/or Controlled Corporations; Local Chief
Executives; Assistant Commissioners, Directors, Officers-in-Charge, and
Auditors of the Commission on Audit; and All Others Concerned.
SUBJECT : Clarifying the application of COA Circular No. 75-6 dated November 7, 1975
on entitlement to transportation allowance of government officials whose
offices have been issued with government vehicles, in accordance with the
ruling of the Supreme Court in Aida Domingo vs. Commission on Audit (G.R.
No. 112371), promulgated on October 7, 1998.
1.0 PURPOSE
This Circular is issued to clarify the application of COA Circular No. 75-6 dated
November 7, 1975 and to implement the Supreme Court ruling in the case "Aida
Domingo vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 112371, October 7, 1998" to the effect that
government officials whose Offices are issued with motor vehicles, regardless of
whether the vehicle is issued to the Office or to the government official himself, shall not
be entitled to transportation allowance.
2.0 REGULATIONS ON NON-ENTITLEMENT TO ALLOWANCE TRANSPORTATION
2.1 For the information of all concerned, quoted hereunder is the pertinent portion
of the Supreme Court decision in the case "Aida Domingo vs. Commission on
Audit", G.R. No. 112371:
"As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, there are two
instances when transportation allowance cannot be granted to a
government official, as when a government official assigned a vehicle,
and when a government official uses government transportation facilities.
It is undeniable that several government vehicles were issued to the
Regional Office of DSWD in Region V. That the vehicles thereat were
issued not to petitioner herself, as Regional Director, but to the Regional
Office itself, is of no moment. What is important and decisive is that such
vehicles were intended primarily for the official use of subject office and
its officials and employees. As maintained by the Solicitor General,
whether or not herein petitioner used the vehicle assigned to her office, is
not an issue, as it is undeniable that she could have used the said vehicle
whenever she wanted to since it was assigned to her office,"
The Court, likewise, ruled:
"In the case under consideration, it must be noted that the

provisions of law referred to in the General Appropriations Acts of 1988,
1989, 1990 and 1991, utilized the word "assigned" and not "used".
Webster’s Dictionary defines the word "assign" as to "to transfer
(property) to another in trust". Had legislative intent been that government
officials issued an official vehicle could still collect transportation
allowance if they do not actually use subject vehicle, the word "use"
instead of "assign" should have been employed."
Based on the above-cited ruling, it is clear that government officials

whose offices are issued with motor vehicles are not entitled to transportation
allowance whether or not they actually used such vehicles.
2.2 The prohibition against collection of transportation allowance when the office is
assigned a vehicle shall apply only to the head of the agency, unless the head
of the agency specifically assigns a vehicle to particular officials under him or to
a particular unit under said official, when there are more than one vehicle
assigned to the agency; in which case, the said official who himself or whose
unit under him has been assigned a vehicle shall not be entitled to
transportation allowance.
2.3 Where the head of agency does not specifically assign a vehicle to a
subordinate official entitled to transportation allowance, or to the unit or division
of the said subordinate official, the latter shall be allowed to collect the
transportation allowance but shall refund the proportionate amount thereof
whenever he avails of a government motor vehicle, corresponding to the
number of days he has used the said government vehicle.
3.0 REPEALING CLAUSE
All existing COA issuances inconsistent herewith are repealed/modified accordingly.
4.0 EFFECTIVITY
This Circular shall take effect immediately.
(Sgd.) CELSO D. GAÑGAN

Chairman
(Sgd.) RAUL C. FLORES (Sgd.) EMMANUEL M. DALMAN

Commissioner Commissioner

Coa C99-002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coa C99-002

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coa C99-002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMMISSION ON AUDIT CIRCULAR NO.

TO : Heads of Departments; Chiefs of Bureaus, Agencies, and Offices; Managing

2.0 REGULATIONS ON NON-ENTITLEMENT TO ALLOWANCE TRANSPORTATION

The Court, likewise, ruled:

"In the case under consideration, it must be noted that the

Based on the above-cited ruling, it is clear that government officials

3.0 REPEALING CLAUSE

All existing COA issuances inconsistent herewith are repealed/modified accordingly.

This Circular shall take effect immediately.

(Sgd.) CELSO D. GAÑGAN

(Sgd.) RAUL C. FLORES (Sgd.) EMMANUEL M. DALMAN

You might also like