B-141161, B-141854, FEB. 10, 1960

B-141161,B-141854: Feb 10, 1960

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

ESQ.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF JANUARY 15. YOU WERE ADVISED BY THE CLAIMS DIVISION THAT PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNTS DUE MESSRS. WAS MADE TO THEM WITHOUT RESERVING ANY AMOUNT FOR YOUR FEES. THE ACTION TAKEN WAS PRIMARILY ON THE BASIS OF ADVICE FROM THE CLAIMANTS THAT THE POWERS OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED IN YOUR FAVOR BY THEM IN 1948 HAD BEEN REVOKED AND THEIR REQUESTS THAT ANY AMOUNT DUE THEM INCIDENT TO THEIR SERVICE IN THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES BE FORWARDED DIRECTLY TO THEM. IT DID NOT APPEAR THEREFROM THAT YOU WERE ENTITLED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT TO RECEIVE SUCH CHECKS. THERE HAS COME TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OFFICE INFORMATION WHICH RAISES QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE POWERS OF ATTORNEY GRANTED IN YOUR FAVOR BY OTHER FILIPINOS AND WHETHER YOU ARE ENTITLED TO ANY FEES WITH RESPECT TO PAYMENTS MADE TO THEM ON THE BASIS OF PUBLIC LAW 85-217.

B-141161, B-141854, FEB. 10, 1960

TO LAVERN R. DILWEG, ESQ.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF JANUARY 15, 1960, ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF LETTERS FROM THE CLAIMS DIVISION OF THIS OFFICE AND REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER PERTAINING TO THE CLAIMS OF PAGLO C. CAIGOY AND LUKE CULANAG.

YOU WERE ADVISED BY THE CLAIMS DIVISION THAT PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNTS DUE MESSRS. CAIGOY AND CULANAG UNDER THE MISSING PERSONS ACT, AS AMENDED, WAS MADE TO THEM WITHOUT RESERVING ANY AMOUNT FOR YOUR FEES. THE ACTION TAKEN WAS PRIMARILY ON THE BASIS OF ADVICE FROM THE CLAIMANTS THAT THE POWERS OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED IN YOUR FAVOR BY THEM IN 1948 HAD BEEN REVOKED AND THEIR REQUESTS THAT ANY AMOUNT DUE THEM INCIDENT TO THEIR SERVICE IN THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES BE FORWARDED DIRECTLY TO THEM. WHILE THE POWERS OF ATTORNEY IN QUESTION, COPIES OF WHICH YOU SUPPLIED, AUTHORIZED YOU TO RECEIVE CHECKS OF THE CLAIMANTS, IT DID NOT APPEAR THEREFROM THAT YOU WERE ENTITLED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT TO RECEIVE SUCH CHECKS. THEREFORE, WE COMPLIED WITH THE CLAIMANTS' REQUESTS LEAVING ANY CONTROVERSY BETWEEN YOU AND THEM CONCERNING YOUR FEE AS PRIVATE MATTERS IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAD NO CONCERN.

HOWEVER, SINCE THE ACTION THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN IN THESE CASES, THERE HAS COME TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OFFICE INFORMATION WHICH RAISES QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE POWERS OF ATTORNEY GRANTED IN YOUR FAVOR BY OTHER FILIPINOS AND WHETHER YOU ARE ENTITLED TO ANY FEES WITH RESPECT TO PAYMENTS MADE TO THEM ON THE BASIS OF PUBLIC LAW 85-217. THESE QUESTIONS HAVE CREATED SIGNIFICANT DOUBT AS TO WHETHER PAYMENT OF ANY PORTION OF THESE CLAIMS IN YOUR CARE WOULD BE PROPER. ON THE OTHER HAND WE RECOGNIZE THAT YOU MAY HAVE A VALID INTEREST IN THESE CLAIMS WHICH MIGHT BE DISSIPATED IF THE PRACTICE OF MENDING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THESE AWARDS DIRECTLY TO THE CLAIMANTS WERE CONTINUED.

THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF ALL PARTIES INVOLVED, WE HAVE ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS REQUIRING, FOR ALL AWARDS WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN PAID, THAT CHECKS IN THE NET AMOUNT DUE ON THE AWARDS AFTER DEDUCTING ANY FEES TO WHICH YOU MAY BE ENTITLED BE MAILED DIRECTLY TO THE CLAIMANTS AND THAT THE FEES PORTIONS THEREOF BE HELD IN SUSPENSE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE QUESTIONABLE MATTERS REFERRED TO ARE RESOLVED. FOR PHILIPPINE SCOUTS, THE WITHHOLDING WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEE PROVISIONS OF PUBLIC LAW 85 -217--- SINCE WE UNDERSTAND YOU HOLD EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS CALLING FOR FEES IN EXCESS OF THE FEES ALLOWED--- AND FOR NON-SCOUTS, THE WITHHOLDING WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO COVER ANY ENTITLEMENT YOU MAY HAVE UNDER THE FEE SCHEDULE CONTAINED IN SUCH EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS. WE UNDERSTAND THE FEE SCHEDULE CONTAINED IN EACH EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT TO BE AS FOLLOWS:

SCHEDULE

AMOUNT APPROVED PERCENTAGE FEE $ 2,500

14 5,000 13

7,500 12 10,000

11 12,000 10 15,000 UP

9

AND IN NO CASE IS THE FEE TO BE LESS THAN 14 PERCENT OF THE APPROVED

AMOUNT IF THE AMOUNT APPROVED IS $2,500 OR LESS.

IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THERE IS NO BASIS UPON WHICH WE MIGHT RECLAIM ANY PORTION OF THE PAYMENTS MADE TO MR. CAIGOY AND MR. CULANAG.