Whether or not an employee who is reassigned to other office not related

to his/her mother agency is entitled to Representation Allowance and

Transportation Allowance (RATA)?

An employee who is on reassignment to another office but within the same

agency may be authorized to continue to collect RATA subject to conditions set
forth by the prevailing rules and regulations.
Under 10.0 of DBM Cir. No. 548 dated May 15, 2013, it states that:

“An incumbent who is on full-time detail to another government agency, or

on reassignment within the same agency or to a special project, may be
authorized to continue to collect RATA, provided that the duties and
responsibilities in the new post are comparable with the
supervisory or managerial nature of his/her regular position as
duly certified by the agency head, subject to the availability of funds.”

Under the 2017 Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource
Actions (OHAOHRA), reassignment is presumed to be regular and made in the
interest or exigency of public service unless proven otherwise or if it constitutes
constructive dismissal.
The doctrine relevant and applicable to the instant case is the ruling of the
Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. CSC et. al.
(G.R. No. 94-205 dated February 11, 1992), which states as follows:
"Respondent Commission has accordingly ruled that the reassignment of
private respondent to another station or place of assignment should not result
in his deprivation of the RATA to which she is entitled under the law, since she
remains to be a chief of a division despite her reassignment. On petitioner's
contention that RATA should be allowed if private respondent was performing
the duties of her former office, the CSC correctly explained that private
respondent was reassigned to another office and thus, her inability to perform
the functions of her position is beyond her control and not of her own
violation."
This Commission, on the basis of the said decision, has already ruled in a
number of cases that RATA is attached to the position. Notable among these
cases, is that of CSC Resolution No. 92-1172, as cited in CSC Resolution No.
95-2152 dated March 23, 1995, which provided as follows: " x x x it is therefore
settled that when an official or employees is entitled to RATA by virtue of the
nature of his position, he shall likewise, be entitled to RATA whenever he is
reassigned to another station or place of assignment, irrespective of whether or
not he performs a nonsupervisory function in the new assignment. x x x "
Likewise, in CSC Resolution No. 93-5587, also quoted in the said 1995
Resolution, the Commission ruled as follows: " x x x RATA is attached to the
position and not to the person. It is a right arising out of the employee's
appointment as a Division Chief (sic). x x x"

"Before disposing of this matter, we highlight the element of inequity

undergirding the DBMs case. By insisting that, as requisite for her receipt of
RATA, respondent must discharge her office as Bacnotans treasurer while on
reassignment at the La Union treasurers office, the DBM effectively punishes
respondent for acceding to her reassignment. Surely, the law could not have
intended to place local government officials like respondent in the difficult
position of having to choose between disobeying a reassignment order or keeping
an allowance. As we observed in a parallel case:

[O]n petitioners contention that RATA should be allowed only if private

respondent is performing the duties of her former office, the CSC correctly
explained that private respondent was reassigned to another office and thus her
inability to perform the functions of her position as Division Chief is beyond her
control and not of her own volition.[] x x x" - (DBM vs. LEONES; G.R. No.
169726)