JOB ORDER EMPLOYEES IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS (LGUs): THEIR ELIGIBILITY FOR TRAININGS AND THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Dear Attorney,

I hope this letter finds you in good spirits. I am writing to seek your legal guidance regarding the status of Job Order (JO) employees in Local Government Units (LGUs) and whether they are allowed to attend or participate in government-sponsored or externally organized training programs. Our LGU places great importance on continuous learning and capacity-building for its personnel, yet there is some uncertainty about the rules applicable to Job Order hires. Specifically, we would like to know:

  1. Are Job Order employees in LGUs allowed under Philippine laws, rules, or policies to join trainings conducted by the LGU or external training providers?
  2. If yes, what are the relevant legal provisions, guidelines, or issuances from agencies such as the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), the Commission on Audit (COA), or the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) that govern their participation?
  3. Are there any limitations regarding the budget, type of training, or conditions under which they can attend these training sessions?
  4. Do Job Order employees incur any legal consequences or conflict-of-interest issues by participating in training programs funded by the LGU, and how does this affect their non-permanent status?

I would be most grateful for any elucidation or clarifications that you can provide on this matter. Thank you for your assistance, and I look forward to your expert opinion.

Sincerely,
A Concerned LGU Personnel Officer

[LEGAL ARTICLE ON THE TOPIC]

In Philippine governance, Local Government Units (LGUs) fulfill numerous essential functions within their territorial jurisdictions. They provide vital public services and are responsible for enforcing public policies at the local level. To address manpower needs, LGUs often rely on a mix of permanent, casual, contractual, and job order (JO) personnel. This discussion focuses on the scope and limitations of Job Order employees within LGUs, specifically their eligibility to join government-sponsored or external trainings. Below is a meticulous analysis of the relevant legal, administrative, and regulatory frameworks in the Philippines.

I. DEFINITION AND LEGAL STATUS OF JOB ORDER EMPLOYEES

  1. Nature of Engagement

    • Job Order (JO) employees in LGUs are typically hired to perform specific tasks or functions within a limited period. Their contracts often stipulate the exact scope of work and the deliverables to be accomplished. This arrangement follows guidelines generally issued by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and is also scrutinized by the Commission on Audit (COA) to ensure compliance with budgetary and auditing rules.

  2. Exclusion from Career Service

    • Under existing Civil Service Commission (CSC) regulations, JO employees are not considered part of the civil service. They do not enjoy the security of tenure or other benefits reserved for permanent or even casual employees. For instance, job order hires are not covered by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), nor are they typically enrolled in the other benefit programs (such as PhilHealth and PAG-IBIG) that regular government employees receive.

  3. Basis in Philippine Law

    • Although there is no single codified statute dedicated exclusively to job order engagements, relevant legal bases can be found in general CSC issuances, COA memoranda, and DBM circulars. The Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160) provides LGUs with the authority to create positions and hire personnel within prescribed guidelines. However, the code defers to the CSC for specific standards governing employment status.
    • CSC Memorandum Circulars often address the nature, scope, and limitations of job order and contract-of-service arrangements within the public sector. These issuances outline that job order hires do not hold civil service eligibility and are not given the same statutory rights as permanent employees. Nonetheless, they remain bound by rules that ensure integrity, accountability, and adherence to ethical standards in government.

II. TRAININGS FOR JO EMPLOYEES: GUIDING PRINCIPLES

  1. Policy of Continuous Learning and Professional Development

    • The Philippine government, through various agencies, encourages capacity-building to maintain an effective and professional public service. This policy is embedded in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which values the development of human resources as part of national growth. The Civil Service Commission frequently underscores that public officials and employees should undergo learning opportunities to maintain and enhance their competencies.

  2. Applicability of Government Trainings to JO Employees

    • While JO employees are not covered by the civil service system, several LGUs, out of practical consideration, invite them to participate in trainings, seminars, or orientations that are crucial to the functions they perform. In many instances, job order hires work alongside regular employees in implementing projects, and the LGU may find it beneficial to equip JO staff with relevant knowledge and skills.
    • Generally, there is no explicit prohibition against JO employees attending training programs, provided the activity is directly related to their functions, funded adequately (subject to relevant budget laws and circulars), and does not contravene any legal or auditing rule. The Commission on Audit (COA) might look into whether government funds have been properly utilized in supporting the training of non-regular employees, but typically, as long as the training is essential for the performance of the job order personnel’s tasks, the expense is considered allowable.

  3. Relevant DBM and CSC Issuances

    • DBM Circulars: They often prescribe guidelines on how LGUs can allocate and disburse funds for salaries, allowances, and even training costs. These issuances emphasize prudent spending and highlight the importance of ensuring that the budget for trainings aligns with the employees’ direct functions.
    • CSC Policies: While CSC policies primarily govern career service personnel, they also offer interpretative guidance on whether or not certain privileges (e.g., training, leave benefits) can be extended to non-career or contractual hires. In general, CSC rules do not preclude local governments from training their JO personnel if such training is deemed essential to the performance of the duties assigned to them.

III. BUDGETARY AND AUDIT CONSIDERATIONS

  1. Proper Chargeability of Training Expenses

    • Local Budget Circulars from the Department of Budget and Management often instruct LGUs on how to plan their budgets for personnel services (PS) and maintenance and other operating expenses (MOOE). Typically, training costs are charged to MOOE or a particular training fund.
    • Job Order employees’ participation in training should be justified as a necessity to achieve the LGU’s project objectives. Such justification can help ensure that the Commission on Audit deems the expenditure as lawful, necessary, and not a misuse of public funds.

  2. Internal Policies of the LGU

    • Some LGUs may craft internal ordinances or human resource policies to address the inclusion of Job Order personnel in training sessions. These policies help safeguard the LGU from potential audit disallowances and ensure that trainings are implemented according to an approved work plan or capacity development program.
    • If the LGU’s HR office or training department enumerates a clear list of recommended trainings (e.g., orientation, skills development, system updates, specialized seminars) for job order personnel, it helps establish the legitimacy and necessity of these activities.

  3. Potential COA Issues

    • The Commission on Audit typically reviews if the use of government funds is in keeping with the principles of economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. Provided that the Job Order personnel’s work directly ties to the function being trained, and the training is reasonably necessary for the advancement of the LGU’s public service mandate, it is unlikely to be flagged as unnecessary spending.
    • Conversely, if the training is evidently unrelated to the employees’ tasks, or if the expenditures are unreasonably high, there is a risk that COA may disallow these expenses. It is, therefore, crucial for the LGU to maintain clear documentation showing the relevance and necessity of such trainings for their JO hires.

IV. RIGHTS AND BENEFITS DURING TRAINING

  1. Entitlement to Training Allowances

    • Under typical Civil Service rules, permanent employees undergoing official trainings may be entitled to per diems, traveling expenses, or training allowances. Job Order personnel, however, usually have no statutory right to these allowances, as they are not covered by civil service laws. Whether or not they receive allowances is subject to the specific terms of their contracts and the pertinent LGU policies.
    • Nonetheless, many LGUs voluntarily extend certain allowances to JO employees when they attend official training, especially if the training location is outside the regular workplace. This practice, however, should be anchored in a local policy or administrative guideline that passes COA’s scrutiny.

  2. Potential Limitations

    • Since JO employees are not permanent or even casual employees, their attendance in training could be subject to the continuing availability of funds or the existing LGU guidelines. If the LGU chooses not to authorize training-related expenses for job order personnel, that is generally within its discretion.
    • Moreover, since JO personnel are not tenured, the principle of “return of service” or scholarship bonds (which typically applies to permanent employees who receive extensive training or scholarships) might not be enforced. Instead, the LGU must carefully evaluate the cost-benefit ratio of investing in a non-permanent workforce.

V. RELEVANT CASE LAWS AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

  1. Jurisprudence on the Nature of JO Employees

    • Several Supreme Court rulings, although mostly discussing contractual or casual employees, clarify that the classification of employment in government is a matter of law and policy. While specific case rulings tend to focus on issues like illegal dismissal or tenure, the Supreme Court has recognized that job order or contract-of-service workers are distinct from employees in the career service.
    • No direct Supreme Court ruling outright prohibits training for JO personnel. Thus, absent any statutory prohibition, the matter is largely guided by administrative rules and practical considerations in the LGU.

  2. COA Decisions on Allowable Expenses

    • In prior COA decisions, certain training expenses for personnel who are not in the career service have been questioned. The outcome of these decisions often hinges on whether a direct nexus is established between the training and the public service objectives. Where an LGU demonstrates a legitimate need and public benefit, COA has allowed the training expense.
    • Therefore, it is prudent that LGUs maintain thorough justifications, including documentation in training proposals, personnel work plans, and post-training activity or performance reports that show how the JO’s newfound skills were utilized in service delivery.

VI. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LGUs AND JO PERSONNEL

  1. Establish an Internal Policy

    • LGUs should develop a written policy or guideline explaining under what circumstances JO employees can attend trainings. This policy can specify the types of trainings relevant to their functions, the documentation needed, the extent of allowances or reimbursements, and the process for approval. A comprehensive policy can shield the LGU from potential legal and audit issues.

  2. Document the Necessity and Relevance of Training

    • When sending JO employees to seminars or workshops, the LGU must ensure that the training is directly aligned with the individual’s job description. Official communications, such as a memorandum from the department head, should specify the benefit the employee’s participation will bring to ongoing government projects.
    • Furthermore, post-training evaluations or presentations can be used to demonstrate that the knowledge gained was effectively disseminated or utilized, thus bolstering the LGU’s defense against any COA queries.

  3. Coordinate with CSC, DBM, and COA

    • For major or specialized trainings that involve significant funding, LGUs can coordinate with the Civil Service Commission or the Department of Budget and Management for clarity on whether they can properly allocate funds for the training. Preemptive consultation can mitigate the risk of disallowances.
    • Meanwhile, ensuring compliance with COA requirements on documentary evidence and budgeting helps support the LGU’s position should the training expenses be subjected to audit scrutiny.

  4. Consider Non-Financial Forms of Training

    • If budget constraints are a concern, LGUs can explore internal knowledge-sharing sessions or online tutorials that do not require significant funding. Job Order employees can be integrated into these sessions to learn government processes, office procedures, or technology tools essential to their tasks.
    • Alternatively, the LGU may look for partnerships with agencies or non-governmental organizations providing free capacity-building programs, thus lowering the cost barrier while still enhancing the skills of JO employees.

VII. CONCLUSION

In sum, Philippine law does not categorically prevent Job Order employees in LGUs from participating in official trainings, workshops, or capacity-building programs. While these personnel are not covered by civil service rules granting them mandatory training benefits or allowances, LGUs generally retain the discretion to include them in such events, as long as it is consistent with budgetary rules and the training is relevant to their job functions.

The Local Government Code of 1991 vests LGUs with autonomy over local personnel matters, subject to general guidelines from the DBM, COA, and the CSC. Thus, to ensure that training expenses for Job Order employees are deemed legitimate, the LGU should:

  1. Adopt clear internal policies about the scope of training offered to JO hires;
  2. Justify the expenditures by showing the direct relationship of the training to public service delivery;
  3. Maintain meticulous documentation in case of COA audits; and
  4. Align training allocations with the overarching principle of government accountability and efficiency.

For Job Order employees, participating in training can help them gain knowledge and skills necessary to perform their functions more effectively. Though they lack the full scope of benefits and protections afforded to regular, casual, or contractual employees in the civil service, they can still benefit from developing their competencies. LGUs, in turn, benefit from an adequately trained workforce, even if temporary, as it enhances the quality of public service rendered to constituents. Ultimately, the legal framework balances the principle of prudent public spending with the recognition that continuing education and training are crucial to governmental efficiency.

By carefully observing these guidelines and principles, LGUs can confidently welcome Job Order employees into training programs, fortifying organizational capacity while preserving compliance with Philippine laws and regulations.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login