The supreme court (sc) has affirmed the commission on audit's (coa) disallowance of flight risk pay (frp) received by the civil aviation authority of the philippines (caap) officials and employees whose duties were primarily managerial:he Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the Commission on Audit's (COA) disallowance of flight risk pay (FRP) received by the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) officials and employees whose duties were primarily managerial, administrative, or financial.

According to Philippines News Agency, the high tribunal stated that the FRP under Republic Act (RA) 776, or the Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines, may only be granted to CAAP personnel whose duties are directly related to flight operations. The SC En Banc emphasized that the CAAP's recipients of the flying risk pay, amounting to PHP323,579, remain individually liable for returning the disallowed amounts they received.

The court highlighted that the COA properly disallowed the excessive and unlawful payment of FRP to CAAP officials and personnel, as the payments lacked statutory basis and were granted to individuals who were not legally entitled to them. The SC clarified that the disallowance was not a procedural irregularity, noting that the payees were not entitled to FRP because their positions did not involve the performance of aerial flight duties as contemplated under the law.

In 2011, CAAP had granted FRP to officials and employees who met the four-hour monthly flight requirement. However, COA observed that FRP payments were made to personnel and officials for activities such as attending conferences and seminars, airport inspections, public hearings, and pre-bid conferences.

The recipients argued that they were entitled to FRP, claiming that RA 776 covers not only 'airmen' but also 'other authorized personnel,' even if their duties were not directly related to flight operations. However, the SC clarified that the phrase 'other authorized personnel' in the law refers to those required to perform regular and frequent aerial flights as part of their official duties.

The SC also referenced the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual, which limits FRP to personnel whose duties are inherent in flight operations and excludes those who fly merely as passengers. In this case, the recipients' air travel was incidental to their managerial, administrative, or financial duties, and their flights were for administrative activities rather than flight operations. As passengers, they were not entitled to FRP, the SC concluded.