Plunder of PNCC gratuity fund

EVEN while the “Marubeni Loans” caper was yet pending before the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong and no one had an inkling it was to become the landmark 2010 Radstock case, GMA-identified nominees to the Philippine National Construction Corp. Board had already entertained the thought that due to its fi-ancial woes, it was just really a matter of time before PNCC sank, like the Titanic.

To avoid being overtaken by such ‘horrific’ event, those scalawags devised a scheme to enable them to continue sucking what remained in the PNCC coffers, before the anticipated deluge.

In April, 2005, these PNCC Board Members (whose identities we shall later reveal) issued Resolution No. BD No. BD-032-2005 (“The Resolution”) GRANTING separation pay to PNCC employees in the event of retrenchment of officers and employees due to early separation or re-trenchment program offered by Management.

The separation or retrenchment benefit offered was computed at the whopping rate of 250% based on latest monthly salary.

The Resolution was forthwith implemented, until it was struck down by the Commission On Audit in its Audit Observation Memorandum dated March 20, 2011, regarding PNCC’s financial transactions for the period ending December 31, 2010.

COA said there was nothing wrong with such separation or retrenchment benefit, which was already being enjoyed by PNCC officers and employees at the time The Resolution was issued. The ‘can in the worm’, stressed the COA,  was the 250% rate offered by Management, which is grossly excessive and injudicious under COA Circular No. 85-55A dated September 8, 1985.

True,  the Philippine Accounting Standards No. 19 required the establishment of Employee-Defined Benefits Plan. But in complying with such directive, PNCC Management should have initially made a careful valuation, keeping in mind the dire financial straits the Agency was traversing at that time. (To be continued)

About Gwenn

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply