COA flags Dumanjug's ?513,000 training expenses

CEBU, Philippines — Excessive meal and accommodation costs, missing supporting documents, questionable use of Gender and Development (GAD) funds, and the lack of justification for holding an activity outside the municipality have placed ?513,000 in training expenses of the Municipality of Dumanjug under audit scrutiny.

In its 2025 annual audit report, the Commission on Audit (COA) said the deficiencies in the municipality’s Capability Development Training could render the entire expenditure irregular and unnecessary, on top of ?288,000.26 in expenses found to have exceeded prescribed limits for official travel.

The training, attended by 50 participants at Bai Hotel in Mandaue City from July 23 to 25, 2025, covered meals and accommodation. The municipality paid ?513,000 for the activity under a disbursement dated September 16, 2025.

COA said the expenditure raised concerns about compliance with government spending rules and the economical use of public funds, particularly because the supporting documents failed to sufficiently establish the necessity and appropriateness of the expenses.

“...additional deficiencies, including the incomplete documentation, improper utilization of Gender and Development (GAD) fund, and the unjustified conduct of the activity outside the Municipality’s territorial jurisdiction, may render the entire training expense amounting to ?513,000.00 as irregular and unnecessary," reads a portion of the audit report.

Excessive travel expenses

Under Executive Order (EO) No. 77, the maximum allowable daily travel expense (DTE) for local government units in Central Visayas is ?1,800 per participant. The amount covers hotel accommodation, meals and incidental expenses, including local transportation and reasonable miscellaneous expenses.

However, COA’s review found that the combined daily cost of meals and accommodation per participant ranged from ?4,000 to ?4,166.67, exceeding the prescribed limit.

The audit team computed the excessive expenditure at ?288,000.26, saying the expenses went beyond reasonable limits under government spending rules.

The accommodation costs included seven double-occupancy rooms at ?4,000 each and 12 triple-occupancy rooms at ?5,500 each for both July 23 and 24. Meals and snacks for the three-day activity amounted to ?325,000.

State auditors noted that the excess expenditure could have been conserved and used to finance other priority projects and programs of the local government unit (LGU) had the municipality observed the prescribed DTE.

Missing documents

Aside from the excessive costs, COA found that essential documents were missing from the disbursement records.

These included an approved training design, program of activities, travel orders, certificates of participation, and a list showing hotel accommodation and/or meal distribution.

The audit team also noted that the Abstract of Award was posted on the Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System only on August 29, 2025, despite the Notice of Award having been issued earlier, on July 18, 2025.

“In the absence of the required documents, or in the absence of valid justification for such deficiencies, the entire training expenditures may be considered irregular," COA stated.

The audit findings cited COA Circular No. 2012-003, which provides guidelines for identifying and disallowing irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant and unconscionable expenditures.

Under the circular, irregular expenditures involve transactions that depart from established rules and procedures, while unnecessary expenditures are those that cannot be justified by an agency’s operational needs or the demands of good government. Excessive expenditures, meanwhile, are those that exceed reasonable limits.

Gad funds questioned

COA also questioned the charging of the ?513,000 disbursement against the municipality’s GAD fund.

Based on the available documents, the audit team found insufficient evidence that the activity was directly related to promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment.

The deficiency, COA said, limited its ability to determine whether the expenditure was consistent with the objectives of the municipality’s GAD Plan and Budget.

Consequently, the audit team said the documents did not adequately demonstrate how the activity addressed identified gender issues or advanced women’s empowerment.

The audit team likewise questioned the decision to hold the training at Bai Hotel in Mandaue City, noting that the venue was beyond the 50-kilometer radius from Dumanjug.

COA said the municipality had not sufficiently explained why the activity could not have been conducted within or near the locality, particularly since similar activities in previous years had been held within the municipality.

In assessing the documents submitted by the municipality, the audit team also observed that the photographs did not demonstrate the need for a larger venue.

“The area utilized appeared relatively small and the activities conducted were limited to table discussions and PowerPoint presentations,” the report stated.

COA further noted that the activity’s title differed across the supporting documents. While the disbursement was identified as a “Capability Development Training,” the activity outline, sample certificate, photographs and memorandum order referred to it as “GAD Planning and Budgeting for CY 2026.”

In a written reply dated May 6, 2026, Dumanjug municipal management argued that the expenditure was not an individual travel reimbursement but a procured training package.

The municipality also maintained that the venue was selected based on the need to accommodate the participants, logistical requirements and program design. It further argued that the activity was duly authorized and formed part of official government functions.

However, the audit team clarified that it used the prescribed DTE as a benchmark to determine whether the expenses fell within the definition of excessive expenditures under COA Circular No. 2012-003, rather than treating the procurement as individual travel reimbursement.

The audit team also found that management’s response failed to establish why Bai Hotel was necessary, given the municipality’s previous practice of holding similar activities locally and the nature of the sessions documented in the submitted photographs.

COA recommended that the municipal accountant and GAD focal person submit the missing documents, together with a written justification explaining why the payment should not be disallowed in audit.

If the audit team finds the justification insufficient, COA recommended requiring the responsible officials to refund either the ?288,000.26 in excessive expenses or the entire ?513,000 corresponding to the potentially irregular and/or unnecessary training expenditure.

The audit team also urged municipal management to exercise prudence in disbursing public funds and ensure that government resources are used efficiently, economically and effectively. — (FREEMAN)