The Supreme Court (SC) en banc has upheld the Commission on Audit’s (COA) disallowance of flying risk pay (FRP) given to Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) personnel whose duties were primarily managerial, administrative, and financial.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC ruled that FRP under Republic Act No. 776, or the Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines, is intended only for personnel whose official duties are directly connected with flight operations.
The SC said the benefit cannot be granted simply because an employee meets the required monthly flight hours, particularly when the air travel is merely incidental to managerial, administrative or other office functions.
The case stemmed from CAAP’s grant of FRP in 2011 to officials and employees who completed the required four hours of flight time per month.
Some of the recipients, however, occupied managerial, administrative and finance positions.
Their air travel mainly involved attending conferences, seminars, public hearings, inspections and similar activities rather than performing flight-related duties.
COA subsequently disallowed P323,579.50 in FRP payments after it ruled that the benefit was intended for personnel whose work involved aerial and flight operations.
The recipients argued that Section 30 of RA 776 covered not only “airmen” but also “other authorized personnel,” and that they qualified because they had completed the four-hour monthly flight requirement.
The SC rejected the argument.
Under Section 30 of RA 776, CAAP-licensed airmen and other authorized personnel who are required to make regular and frequent aerial flights in connection with their duties may receive FRP equivalent to 50% of their salary, provided they complete at least four hours of flight time per month.
The Court noted that RA 776 defines an “airman” to include pilots, mechanics, flight radio operators, aircraft crew members and persons responsible for inspecting, maintaining or repairing aircraft.
These positions, the SC said, involve functions directly connected with aircraft operation and navigation.
The phrase “other authorized personnel” likewise refers to employees whose official duties require them to make regular and frequent aerial flights.
The SC also cited the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual, which limits FRP to personnel whose duties are inherent in flight operations and excludes employees who merely travel as passengers.
In the case before the Court, the recipients’ flights were incidental to their managerial, administrative or financial functions.
“They were not entitled to FRP,” the SC ruled because their air travel did not involve the performance or supervision of flight operations.
The Court also noted that the recipients were not among the personnel authorized to receive FRP under CAAP’s 2011 Corporate Operating Budget approved by the Department of Budget and Management.
The recipients were ordered to return the disallowed amounts.#