Job Order and Contract of Service Workers in Government: Rights, Pay, Benefits and Why They Are Not Employees

A city hall utility worker sweeps the same courtyard every day for six years, reports to the same supervisor as the regular plantilla staff, and still has no Service Incentive Leave, no 13th month pay, and nothing creditable toward a government pension. A hospital’s contract-of-service nurse covers full shifts beside regularly appointed nurses but signs a new six-month contract every renewal cycle. Both are common, both are entirely within current Philippine rules — and both illustrate why Job Order (JO) and Contract of Service (COS) workers occupy one of the strangest corners of Philippine employment law: they work for the government, but the government is not, legally, their employer.

This guide explains exactly what JO and COS status means, why these workers are neither civil service employees nor ordinary Labor Code employees, what the government has done — including a 2024 Supreme Court ruling and a 2025 rewrite of the governing rules — to define and limit the arrangement, and what a JO or COS worker can realistically do when something goes wrong.

Direct Answer

Job Order and Contract of Service workers are not government employees and are not covered by the Civil Service Law, the Labor Code, or the National Labor Relations Commission’s jurisdiction.^[1][2] They are engaged under a special, government-specific framework — currently CSC-COA-DBM Joint Circular No. 1, series of 2025 — precisely because no employer-employee relationship is considered to exist between them and the hiring agency.^[1] The Supreme Court confirmed this directly in 2024, ruling that Contract of Service and Job Order workers at the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) were not government employees, were outside civil service coverage, and were not entitled to the leave, bonuses, or other benefits that regular government personnel receive — while cautioning agencies against using that hiring authority to mistreat these workers.^[2] JO and COS engagements are not creditable as government service for retirement purposes, do not carry security of tenure, and are generally paid under a separate compensation structure rather than a regular government salary. A 2026 presidential directive has since made it easier for these workers to voluntarily enroll in SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG through their agency’s payroll, but it does not change their legal classification.^[3] In practice, a claim for unpaid compensation against the engaging agency goes to the Commission on Audit, which has primary jurisdiction over money claims against the government; the Civil Service Commission has held it has no jurisdiction over JO/COS engagements.^[2][5]

Key Takeaways

• JO and COS workers render services for a government agency without becoming government employees — there is no employer-employee relationship, no civil service coverage, and no security of tenure.^[1][2]
• The Supreme Court confirmed this in 2024 for PAGCOR’s COS and JO workers: no civil service coverage, no entitlement to government employee benefits, and no automatic reclassification no matter how long or how similar the work is to a regular position.^[2]
• The current governing rule is CSC-COA-DBM Joint Circular No. 1, series of 2025, “Revised Rules and Regulations on the Engagement of Contract of Service and Job Order Workers in the Government,” issued December 15, 2025, which superseded the original 2017 version of the same circular.^[1]
• A directly engaged JO/COS worker generally cannot use DOLE’s SEnA process or the NLRC against the engaging agency: those routes depend on an employer-employee relationship, and the governing CSC rules state that JO/COS engagements are covered by COA rules, not civil service law.^[2]
• JO/COS service is not creditable as government service, and directly engaged workers are not enrolled in GSIS or automatically reported to SSS or Pag-IBIG the way a regular employee would be. PhilHealth is different: under the Universal Health Care Act every Filipino is automatically included in the National Health Insurance Program, although premiums still have to be paid.^[2][6]
• Administrative Order No. 43 (2026), signed June 3, 2026, now directs government agencies to facilitate voluntary payroll deduction and remittance of SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG contributions for COS and JO workers who consent — a practical fix for a long-standing coverage gap, not a change in employment status.^[3]
• Under institutional Contract of Service arrangements, the registered service provider — not the government agency — is responsible for its workers’ compliance with labor standards, SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG as their actual employer.^[1]
• A JO or COS worker with a grievance generally starts with the agency head; unpaid compensation goes to the Commission on Audit as a money claim against the government; and misconduct by public officials can be reported to the Office of the Ombudsman. In Abadilla, the workers’ illegal dismissal complaint before the CSC regional office and their complaint in the Regional Trial Court were both dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.^[2][5]

Legal Basis

Authority	Classification	Rule Supported	Effect
CSC-COA-DBM Joint Circular No. 1, s. 2025	Joint administrative issuance	Current rules governing engagement, compensation, and limits on JO and COS workers in government	Binding administrative rule; supersedes the 2017 circular
CSC-COA-DBM Joint Circular No. 1, s. 2017 (superseded)	Joint administrative issuance	Original framework establishing that JO/COS workers have no employer-employee relationship with the agency and are outside civil service	Historical primary source; relevant to pre-2025 engagements and the 2024 PAGCOR ruling
Abadilla, et al. v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, G.R. No. 258658, June 19, 2024	Supreme Court jurisprudence	COS/JO workers are not government employees, are outside civil service coverage, and are not entitled to government employee benefits; agencies warned against mistreatment	Controlling jurisprudence
Administrative Order No. 43 (2026), June 3, 2026	Presidential issuance	Directs agencies to facilitate voluntary SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG payroll deduction for consenting COS/JO workers	Binding on covered agencies; does not alter employment classification
CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, s. 1998, Rule XI	CSC rule	JO/COS services are not government service, are not covered by civil service law but by COA rules, and carry no PERA, COLA or RATA	Binding administrative rule, applied in Abadilla
Presidential Decree No. 1445, Section 26; Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction, G.R. Nos. 197592 & 202623, November 27, 2013	Statute and Supreme Court jurisprudence	The Commission on Audit has primary jurisdiction over money claims against the government; a court judgment on such a claim was set aside	Controlling jurisprudence
Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), Book V	Statute	Defines civil service coverage for government personnel	Binding law
Republic Act No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act)	Statute	Governs the procurement of institutional Contract of Service providers and consultancy engagements	Binding law

What Are Job Order and Contract of Service Workers?

Government agencies in the Philippines regularly need manpower beyond their approved plantilla (the official list of regular, budgeted positions). Two engagement types fill that gap, and they are legally distinct from each other even though both sit outside civil service:

• Job Order (JO) workers are engaged for piece-work, intermittent, or emergency jobs — the classic examples are disaster debris clearing, and skilled trades work such as carpentry, plumbing, or electrical repairs on government property. A JO worker is typically paid either an agreed contract amount for a defined job or on a daily-wage basis for the period actually worked, and there is no employer-employee relationship with the hiring agency.
• Contract of Service (COS) workers are engaged as individual consultants, technical experts, or professionals to deliver a specific project or scope of work within a defined period, or through an institutional arrangement with a registered service-provider company. Where an institutional COS provider is used, the workers it fields remain employees of that provider — not of the government agency — and the provider carries the legal responsibility for their labor-standard compliance.

Neither category appears on an agency’s plantilla, neither is paid out of personnel services the way a regular appointee is — unlike regular civil service pay, which follows the government Salary Grade system — and neither accrues time that counts toward a government employee’s length of service, retirement eligibility, or step increments.

Why They Are Not Government Employees — or Ordinary Employees Either

LaborCode.ph’s broader guide on whether government employees have labor rights explains that regular civil service personnel are governed by the Civil Service Law, not the Labor Code. JO and COS workers fall into a narrower, separate category still: the governing circulars and the Supreme Court have both been explicit that no employer-employee relationship exists between a JO or COS worker and the government office that engages them.^[1][2] That single fact drives everything else about their legal treatment:

• They are not civil service employees, so Civil Service Commission rules on security of tenure, appointment, and discipline do not apply to them the way they apply to regular personnel.
• They are not Labor Code employees of the government agency either, because a government office engaging a JO/COS worker directly is not acting as a private employer under Presidential Decree No. 442 — which is why NLRC and DOLE generally lack jurisdiction over a dispute between a JO/COS worker and the engaging agency.
• Their service is not creditable as government service for GSIS retirement, step increment, or seniority purposes.
• They are excluded from government-employee-specific benefits such as Personnel Economic Relief Allowance (PERA), Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA), government leave credits, and the loyalty award system tied to length of government service.

This is a deliberate design choice, not an oversight or a loophole being quietly tolerated: the CSC, COA and DBM have chosen, through successive circulars, to keep JO/COS engagements outside both major employment frameworks so that agencies can meet short-term, project-based, or specialized needs without creating new permanent plantilla positions that would require legislative budget action.

The 2025 Joint Circular and What Changed

The framework currently in force is CSC-COA-DBM Joint Circular No. 1, series of 2025, titled “Revised Rules and Regulations on the Engagement of Contract of Service and Job Order Workers in the Government,” issued December 15, 2025. It replaces the original CSC-COA-DBM Joint Circular No. 1, series of 2017, which had governed JO/COS engagements for eight years and was the framework the Supreme Court applied in the 2024 PAGCOR case.^[1][2] Section 7.4 of the 2017 circular, as quoted by the Supreme Court, provided that JO/COS services “are not covered by Civil Service law and rules thus, not creditable as government service” and that these workers “do not enjoy the benefits enjoyed by government employees, such as leave, PERA, RATA and thirteenth month pay.”^[2]

What official announcements say about the 2025 circular: according to the Civil Service Commission and the Philippine Information Agency, agencies may not exceed the number of COS and JO workers they had at the end of 2025, and the circular takes effect 15 days after publication.^[1] According to the PIA report on Administrative Order No. 43, the 2025 circular allows COS and JO workers a premium of not more than 20% of their compensation to help cover voluntary social security contributions.^[3]

Because the 2025 circular is a full revision rather than a minor amendment, specific compensation rules and any new benefit provisions should be verified against the current 2025 text directly before being relied on for a specific case — this guide was not able to confirm the complete, line-by-line text of the 2025 revision when sources were last rechecked, and readers handling an active compensation dispute should request a copy of the governing circular from their agency’s HR or budget office, or from the Civil Service Commission, Commission on Audit, or Department of Budget and Management directly.

The 2024 Supreme Court Ruling: Abadilla v. PAGCOR

In Abadilla, et al. v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (G.R. No. 258658, June 19, 2024), workers in PAGCOR’s hotel and restaurant business in Bacolod City — cooks, waiters, dishwashers, stewards and similar staff whose fixed-term contracts had been renewed over periods ranging from one to 17 years — challenged their treatment after PAGCOR announced it would close that business location and not renew their contracts. Their illegal dismissal complaint before the CSC regional office was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, a complaint they then filed in the Regional Trial Court was also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the case reached the Supreme Court from the CSC through the Court of Appeals. They argued they were effectively regular employees entitled to overtime pay, Service Incentive Leave, vacation leave, and other standard benefits, given the length and nature of their service.^[2]

The Supreme Court denied the petition. It held that the workers’ engagement fell squarely under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40-98, CSC Resolution No. 020790, and the 2017 CSC-COA-DBM Joint Circular governing Contract of Service and Job Order personnel, and that “services rendered thereunder are not considered government services” and such workers “do not enjoy the benefits enjoyed by government employees.” The Court also held that the workers were not “confidential” employees despite the PAGCOR charter’s label for casino personnel, because the nature, rank and pay of their positions did not fit that category, and that as JO/COS workers they were “not under the jurisdiction of the CSC.” No back pay or benefits were awarded.^[2]

Practical lesson: length of service, the essential or recurring nature of the work, and even repeated contract renewal do not by themselves convert a JO or COS engagement into a civil service position or trigger regular-employee benefits. At the same time, the Court did not give agencies a blank check: it explicitly warned that “such hiring authority should not be used to mistreat or otherwise mismanage contract of service or job order workers,” signaling that abuse of the arrangement remains a live administrative and constitutional concern even where it is not an illegal-dismissal case.^[2]

Common Problems and Red Flags

• Using JO/COS status to permanently staff a regular function. Engaging the same person, doing the same essential work, under back-to-back JO/COS contracts for years is common practice and was upheld in Abadilla, but it remains the single most frequent source of worker grievances and public criticism of the system.
• Treating COS workers exactly like regular staff on paper. Requiring a COS worker to follow the same daily time record, reporting lines, and disciplinary rules as plantilla personnel blurs the distinction the circular depends on, even though courts have so far declined to convert the classification on that basis alone.
• Assuming SSS or Pag-IBIG coverage is automatic. Directly engaged JO/COS workers are not reported by an employer the way a regular private-sector employee would be; SSS and Pag-IBIG coverage depends on the worker’s own registration and contributions (now possible through agency payroll under AO No. 43), or, for institutional COS, on the provider’s compliance as the actual employer. PhilHealth membership itself is automatic for every Filipino under the Universal Health Care Act, but premiums still have to be paid.^[3][6]
• Confusing an institutional COS provider’s obligations with the government agency’s. If an institutional provider fails to remit SSS, PhilHealth, or Pag-IBIG contributions for its fielded workers, the recourse is against that provider as the actual employer, not against the government agency that contracted the provider’s services.
• Expecting NLRC or DOLE SEnA to resolve a compensation dispute. Because there is no employer-employee relationship with the agency, these forums generally cannot take jurisdiction over a JO/COS worker’s claim against the hiring government office.

JO/COS vs Regular Government Employee vs Private-Sector Employee

Status	Governing Framework	Security of Tenure	Benefits and Coverage
Job Order / Contract of Service worker	CSC-COA-DBM Joint Circular No. 1, s. 2025	None — engagement ends with the contract or project	No GSIS; voluntary SSS/PhilHealth/Pag-IBIG under AO No. 43 (2026); no PERA, RATA, government leave or 13th month pay
Regular government employee (civil service)	Civil Service Law, E.O. No. 292, Book V	Constitutional security of tenure; removable only for cause and with due process	GSIS, PERA, RATA, government leave credits, loyalty award, Collective Negotiation Agreement benefits
Private-sector employee	Labor Code of the Philippines	Statutory security of tenure under Article 294 [279] of the Labor Code	SSS, PhilHealth, Pag-IBIG, 13th month pay, overtime, holiday pay, Service Incentive Leave where covered

Pay, Benefits, and the Social Protection Gap

The practical consequence of JO/COS status is a real social-protection gap that the government has acknowledged rather than denied. Because these workers are outside both the GSIS system that covers regular government personnel and the automatic SSS enrollment that comes with a private-sector employment relationship, many JO/COS workers historically had no SSS retirement or sickness coverage unless they registered and paid contributions themselves. SSS has also signed KaSSSangga Collect agreements with individual agencies so that contributions of their JO and COS workers can be collected and remitted in bulk.^[7] PhilHealth is the exception: every Filipino is automatically included in the National Health Insurance Program under the Universal Health Care Act.^[6] See LaborCode.ph’s SSS Contribution Table guide for how those voluntary-member rates compare to an employer-remitted contribution.

Administrative Order No. 43, signed June 3, 2026, is a direct response to that gap. It directs national government departments, government-owned or controlled corporations, and state universities and colleges — and encourages local government units — to set up payroll mechanisms that let COS and JO workers who consent have SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG contributions deducted from their compensation and remitted on their behalf, with the agency entering into the necessary arrangements with those three institutions. This removes a significant administrative burden from individual workers, but it is still voluntary, still requires the worker’s consent, and still does not reclassify them as employees of the agency or make the agency liable for an employer share the way a private employer would be for a regular employee.^[3]

What to Do Next

For JO/COS Workers

1. Get your actual engagement documents in order — the Job Order or Contract of Service agreement, any renewal documents, and whichever circular is cited as its legal basis. Confirm your status in writing if it is unclear.
2. Ask your HR or administrative office about the AO No. 43 payroll-deduction mechanism if you want SSS, PhilHealth, or Pag-IBIG coverage and are not currently enrolled; consent is required, so you will need to formally opt in.
3. If you believe you are being treated as a de facto regular employee — same supervision, same functions, same schedule as plantilla staff, used to avoid creating a regular position — raise it in writing with your agency head or HR first, since Abadilla shows courts will not convert the classification lightly on facts alone.
4. For unpaid compensation already earned under your contract, write to the agency head or its HR, budget or accounting office first, attaching the contract, your accomplishment reports or daily time records, and the unpaid billing periods. If that fails, the claim is a money claim against the government: the Supreme Court has held that the Commission on Audit has primary jurisdiction over such claims under Section 26 of Presidential Decree No. 1445, and it set aside a trial court judgment that bypassed COA.^[5] The NLRC and SEnA generally do not apply because there is no employer-employee relationship with the agency, and the CSC has held it has no jurisdiction over JO/COS engagements.^[2] No fixed filing period for a COA money claim was verified for this guide, so act promptly and confirm the requirements with the COA office that audits your agency.
5. For mistreatment, abuse of the engagement, or irregularities in how JO/COS hiring is being used, raise it in writing with the agency head first. Misconduct by a public official can be the subject of an administrative complaint against that official (the Office of the Ombudsman handles complaints against public officials), and irregular use of public funds is within COA’s audit mandate. Keep in mind that in Abadilla the CSC dismissed the workers’ own illegal dismissal complaint for lack of jurisdiction, even as the Supreme Court warned agencies against using JO/COS hiring authority to mistreat workers.^[2]
6. If you are an institutional COS worker fielded by a private service provider, your employer is the provider, a private employer, so the ordinary private-sector routes apply against it: unpaid wages or benefits go to a Request for Assistance under SEnA at the DOLE office covering your workplace, and unremitted contributions can also be reported to SSS, PhilHealth or Pag-IBIG. Bring your payslips showing deductions, your contribution records from each agency’s online account, and your contract with the provider. Labor Code money claims against the provider must be filed within three years from accrual. See how SEnA works.

For Government Agencies

1. Obtain and apply the current 2025 Joint Circular rather than relying on 2017-era compensation figures or summaries, since the framework was fully revised by the circular dated December 15, 2025, which takes effect 15 days after publication, and agencies may not exceed their end-2025 number of COS and JO workers.^[1]
2. Verify that institutional COS providers are properly registered with DOLE, BIR, and SEC or DTI, and maintain active SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG registration as the fielded workers’ actual employer.
3. Set up the AO No. 43 payroll-deduction mechanism for directly engaged JO/COS workers who wish to enroll voluntarily in SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG, and inform workers clearly that participation requires their consent.
4. Avoid using JO/COS engagements as a substitute for a needed regular position where budget and staffing rules would otherwise call for one — while Abadilla shows courts have so far upheld long-running JO/COS use, the Supreme Court’s own warning against mistreatment signals continuing scrutiny of the practice.
5. Keep JO/COS personnel records separate from plantilla personnel records, and ensure performance evaluations, time records, and compensation vouchers reflect the correct engagement type.

Agency Compliance Checklist

• Confirm each JO or COS engagement is documented under the current 2025 Joint Circular, not the superseded 2017 version, and that total JO/COS headcount stays within the end-2025 level.
• Verify institutional COS providers’ registration with DOLE, BIR, SEC/DTI, SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG before engaging them.
• Offer and document the AO No. 43 voluntary payroll-deduction option for SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG to directly engaged JO/COS workers.
• Keep JO/COS compensation vouchers and personnel files clearly separated from plantilla payroll and civil service personnel records.
• Review long-running JO/COS engagements periodically to confirm the underlying need still fits the JO/COS framework rather than a regular position.
• Train HR and budget staff on the distinction between Job Order and Contract of Service engagements, since the compensation basis for each differs.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are Job Order and Contract of Service workers government employees?

No. The Supreme Court confirmed in 2024 that COS and JO workers are not government employees, are outside civil service coverage, and are not entitled to the benefits regular government personnel receive, because no employer-employee relationship exists between them and the engaging agency.^[2]

Can a long-serving JO or COS worker become a regular government employee automatically?

Not automatically. In Abadilla v. PAGCOR, workers with up to seventeen years of continuous, repeatedly renewed service were still held not to be government employees. Reclassification as a regular civil service position generally requires an actual appointment to a plantilla position through the normal civil service process, not the mere passage of time.^[2]

Do JO/COS workers get 13th month pay, PERA, or RATA?

No. These are government-employee-specific benefits tied to civil service status, and JO/COS workers are explicitly excluded from them under the governing circular framework.^[1][2]

Are JO/COS workers covered by SSS, PhilHealth, or Pag-IBIG?

SSS and Pag-IBIG coverage is not automatic for directly engaged JO/COS workers: they must register and contribute, though Administrative Order No. 43 (2026) now lets them do this through their agency’s payroll with their consent. PhilHealth membership is automatic for every Filipino under the Universal Health Care Act, but premiums still have to be paid. Institutional COS workers are covered through their actual employer, the service-provider company, as any private-sector employee would be.^[3][6]

Where should a JO/COS worker file a complaint about unpaid compensation?

Start with a written demand to the agency head, with your contract and proof of the services and billing periods. If the agency still does not pay, the claim goes to the Commission on Audit, which has primary jurisdiction over money claims against the government. DOLE’s SEnA process and the NLRC generally do not apply to a directly engaged JO/COS worker, and the CSC has held it has no jurisdiction over JO/COS engagements. Institutional COS workers paid by a private provider can use SEnA against the provider.

What is the difference between a Job Order worker and a Contract of Service worker?

Job Order covers piece-work, intermittent, or emergency jobs such as skilled trades or disaster-related work, typically paid on a daily-wage or per-job basis. Contract of Service covers individual consultants or technical experts engaged for a defined project or scope, or workers fielded by a registered institutional service provider, typically compensated at market or contracted rates.

Is the 2017 CSC-COA-DBM Joint Circular still the current rule?

No. It was superseded by CSC-COA-DBM Joint Circular No. 1, series of 2025, issued December 15, 2025, which revised the rules governing JO and COS engagements. Anyone relying on specific compensation figures should check the current 2025 text rather than older 2017-era summaries.^[1]

Conclusion

Job Order and Contract of Service status is not a loophole or an accident — it is a deliberate, long-standing category that Philippine government agencies use to meet staffing needs outside the civil service and outside the Labor Code, confirmed as valid by the Supreme Court as recently as 2024 and freshly revised at the end of 2025. That does not make the arrangement free of real stakes for the workers inside it: no security of tenure, no automatic social insurance, and no access to the labor forums most Filipino workers would otherwise use. The 2026 move to make SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG enrollment easier through voluntary payroll deduction is a genuine improvement, but it is opt-in, not automatic, and it changes nothing about employment status. Anyone working under a JO or COS arrangement should know exactly which framework governs their engagement, enroll in the social protection options now available to them, and understand that a grievance about compensation runs through the agency and then the Commission on Audit, and complaints about official misconduct through the agency head or the Ombudsman — not DOLE or the NLRC.

Sources and Legal Citations

1. Civil Service Commission, Commission on Audit, and Department of Budget and Management, Joint Circular No. 1, series of 2025, “Revised Rules and Regulations on the Engagement of Contract of Service and Job Order Workers in the Government,” December 15, 2025; see also the superseded Joint Circular No. 1, series of 2017 — dbm.gov.ph; announcement of the hiring cap and effectivity: Civil Service Commission and Philippine Information Agency
2. Abadilla, et al. v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, G.R. No. 258658, June 19, 2024 — lawphil.net
3. Office of the President, Administrative Order No. 43, series of 2026, directing agencies to facilitate voluntary SSS, PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG contributions for Contract of Service and Job Order workers, signed June 3, 2026 — Philippine Information Agency
4. Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), Book V, civil service coverage — lawphil.net
5. Province of Aklan v. Jody King Construction and Development Corp., G.R. Nos. 197592 & 202623, November 27, 2013, on COA’s primary jurisdiction over money claims against the government under Section 26 of Presidential Decree No. 1445 — lawphil.net
6. Republic Act No. 11223 (Universal Health Care Act), Section 5, automatic inclusion of every Filipino in the National Health Insurance Program — lawphil.net
7. Social Security System, “SSS and TESDA enter partnership arrangement for social security coverage of JO, COS workers,” April 24, 2025 (KaSSSangga Collect Program) — sss.gov.ph

---

LaborCode.ph Editorial Team
Sources rechecked as of: October 1, 2026

This article is provided for general educational and legal-information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should verify current compensation and benefit rules against the 2025 Joint Circular text directly, as this guide could not confirm its complete substantive provisions when sources were last rechecked. For advice on an actual situation, consult the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Audit, the Department of Budget and Management, or a Philippine lawyer.