Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 861 views

    NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association v. NPC - DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    hdhsh
    The Supreme Court ruled that National Power Board Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125 were invalidly enacted and void. The powers of the NPB Directors were vested to them by the legislature based on their personal qualifications and acumen, and could not be further delegated. Only three of the nine required board members were physically present and able to validly vote, so the resolutions did not have the necessary number of votes to be enacted. The Court therefore declared the resolutions void and enjoined the respondents from implementing them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association v. NPC - DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    hdhsh
    861 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that National Power Board Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125 were invalidly enacted and void. The powers of the NPB Directors were vested to them by the legislature based on their personal qualifications and acumen, and could not be further delegated. Only three of the nine required board members were physically present and able to validly vote, so the resolutions did not have the necessary number of votes to be enacted. The Court therefore declared the resolutions void and enjoined the respondents from implementing them.

    Original Description:

    NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association v. NPC_DIGEST

    Original Title

    NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association v. NPC_DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that National Power Board Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125 were invalidly enacted and void. The powers of the NPB Directors were vested to them by the legislature based on their personal qualifications and acumen, and could not be further delegated. Only three of the nine required board members were physically present and able to validly vote, so the resolutions did not have the necessary number of votes to be enacted. The Court therefore declared the resolutions void and enjoined the respondents from implementing them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    861 views2 pages

    NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association v. NPC - DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    hdhsh
    The Supreme Court ruled that National Power Board Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125 were invalidly enacted and void. The powers of the NPB Directors were vested to them by the legislature based on their personal qualifications and acumen, and could not be further delegated. Only three of the nine required board members were physically present and able to validly vote, so the resolutions did not have the necessary number of votes to be enacted. The Court therefore declared the resolutions void and enjoined the respondents from implementing them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    D06. NPC DRIVERS AND MECHANICS ASSOCIATION v.

    NPC
    G.R. 156208 | September 26, 2006 | Chico-Nazario, J.
    Migs | Topic: Separation of Powers and Delegation of power
    Case Summary: Petitioners question the validity of NPB Resolutions that would implement the
    Separation Program for employees as part of the privatization efforts of NPC. NPB Directors who
    promulgated the assailed resolutions assigned alternates to sign the resolution. SC ruled that the
    powers of the NPB Directors are vested by the legislature and can no longer be further delegated.

    Doctrine: An officer to whom a discretion is entrusted cannot delegate it to another, the


    presumption being that he was chosen because he was deemed fit and competent to exercise
    that judgment and discretion, and unless the power to substitute another in his place has been
    given to him, he cannot delegate his duties to another.
    Petitioner: NPC DRIVERS AND MECHANICS ASSOCIATION
    Respondent: NPC

    Facts:
    - On 8 June 2001, Republic Act No. 9136, otherwise known as the "Electric Power Industry
    Reform Act of 2001" (EPIRA Law), which provides for the “orderly and transparent
    privatization of the assets and liabilities of the National Power Corporation (NPC)”. A
    National Power Board (NPB) was also constituted under this law.
    - NPB promulgated Resolution No. 2002-124 which provided for the Guidelines on the
    Separation Program of the NPC, and Resolution No. 2002-125 constituting the Transition
    Team to implement the Separation Program.
    - Petitioners filed a petition to restrain NPC from implementing Resolution Nos. 2002-124 and
    2002-125 arguing that they are void and without force and effect.
    - Petitioners argued that promulgation of the resolutions were only officially approved by three
    (3) official members of the board, while the other four (4) attendees of the said board
    meeting were only representatives or alternates of those officially designated officers under
    the EPIRA Law. Petitioners claim that the acts of these representatives are violative of the
    well-settled principle that "delegated power cannot be further delegated." Thus,
    petitioners conclude that the questioned Resolutions have been illegally issued as it were not
    issued by a duly constituted board since no quorum existed because only three of the nine
    members, as provided under Section 48 of the EPIRA Law, were present and qualified to sit
    and vote.
    - Respondents claim that the validity of such administrative practice whereby an authority is
    exercised by persons or subordinates appointed by the responsible official has long been
    settled. Respondents further contend that Section 48 of the EPIRA Law does not in any way
    prohibit any member of the NPB from authorizing his representative to sign resolutions
    adopted by the Board.

    Issue/s: Whether NPB Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125 were validly
    enacted.

    Holding: SC Ruled in favor of the petitioners that the powers of the NPB Directors were vested to
    them by the legislature. It is to be presumed that in naming the respective department heads as
    members of the board of directors, the legislature chose these secretaries of the various executive
    departments on the basis of their personal qualifications and acumen which made them eligible to
    occupy their present positions as department heads. Thus, the department secretaries cannot
    delegate their duties as members of the NPB, much less their power to vote and approve board
    resolutions, because it is their personal judgment that must be exercised in the fulfillment of such
    responsibility.
    Evidently, the votes cast by these mere representatives in favor of the adoption of the said
    Resolutions must not be considered in determining whether or not the necessary number of votes
    was garnered in order that the assailed Resolutions may be validly enacted. Hence, there being only
    three valid votes cast out of the nine board members, the assailed Resolutions are void and are of
    no legal effect.

    Ruling:
    National Power Board Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125 are hereby declared VOID and
    WITHOUT LEGAL EFFECT. The Petition for Injunction is hereby GRANTED and respondents are
    hereby ENJOINED from implementing said NPB Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125.

    You might also like