[11] NPC DAMA v.

NPC FACTS:
GR No. 156208 | November 21, 2017 | Leonardo-De Castro  The Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) was enacted to ordain reforms
Ventura in the electric power industry, including the privatization of the assets and
liabilities of the NPC. The law created the National Power Board (NPB) consisting
PETITIONERS/PROSECUTORS: NPC DRIVERS AND MECHANICS of 9 heads of agencies as members.
ASSOCIATION (NPC DAMA), represented by its President ROGER S. SAN JUAN,  In line with NPC's privatization, the EPIRA also called for the NPC's restructuring.
SR., NPC EMPLOYEES & WORKERS UNION (NEWU)-NORTHERN LUZON, o NPB passed NPB Resolution Nos. 2002-124 and 2002-125 directing the
REGIONAL CENTER, represented by its Regional President JIMMY D. SALMAN, in termination from service of all NPC employees effective January 31, 2003.
their own individual capacities and in behalf of the members of the associations and all o The restructuring plan covered even "Early-leavers" or those who: (a) did
affected officers and employees of National Power Corporation (NPC), ZOL D. not intend to be rehired by NPC based on the new organizational structure,
MEDINA, NARCISO M. MAGANTE, VICENTE B. CIRIO, JR., NECITAS B. or (b) were no longer employed by NPC after June 26, 2001, the date of the
CAMAMA, in their individual capacities as employees of National Power Corporation EPIRA's effectivity, for any reason other than voluntary resignation.
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION  In its 2006 Decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the resolutions were void
(NPC), NATIONAL POWER BOARD OF DIRECTORS (NPB), JOSE ISIDRO N. because they were not passed by a majority of the members of the NPB.
CAMACHO as Chairman of the National Power Board of Directors (NPB), ROLANDO  The Decision was soon clarified in a 2008 Resolution stating that the Court's
S. QUILALA, as President-Officer-in-Charge/CEO of National Power Corporation and Decision does not preclude the NPB from passing another resolution, in accord
Member of National Power Board, and VINCENT S. PEREZ, JR., EMILIA T. with law and jurisprudence, approving a new separation program from its
BONCODIN, MARIUS P. CORPUS, RUBEN S. REINOSO, JR., GREGORY L. employees.
DOMINGO and NIEVES L. OSORIO  The 2006 Decision became final and executory and entry of judgment was made.
Soon after, the Court granted the petitioner’s motion for execution.
TOPIC: State Immunity  The petitioners sought to cite the NPB/NPC for contempt for its alleged failure to
comply with the Court's directive. They also insisted for the garnishment and/or
CASE SUMMARY: Due to the enactment of the EPIRA, the law created the National levy of NPC's assets, including those of PSALM, for the satisfaction of the
Power Board and the National Power Commission was privatized and restructured. judgment.
This resulted to the termination of all NPC employees. The Court issued an award for  The NPC countered that there were actually only 16 NPC personnel terminated on
the employees, but the NPB/NPC failed to comply. The petitioners insisted in the January 31, 2003. Also, the issuance of NPB Resolution No. 2007-55 cured the
garnishment and levy of NPC’S assets including those of PSALM, for the satisfaction infirm NPB Resolution Nos. 2002-124 and 2002-125. Thus, the termination on
of the judgment. The Court ruled that the petitioners were actually illegally dismissed, January 31, 2003 was valid and legal.
and that NPC is liable for separation pay.
ISSUES and RULING:
DOCTRINE: (This is mainly a labor case; not sure why it’s under state immunity but  WON the employees were illegally dismissed and NPC is liable for separation
here’s a wild guess.) The back payment of any compensation to public officers and pay – YES
employees cannot be done through a writ of execution. The COA has exclusive o At the onset, We emphasize that most of the matters raised by respondents
jurisdiction to settle "all debts and claims of any sort due from or owing to the NPC and PSALM in their respective submissions have already been ruled
Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities." The proper upon by the Court and have since attained finality, i.e., (a) NPB Resolution
procedure to enforce a judgment award against the government is to file a separate Nos. 2002-124 and 2002-125 are void and without legal effect; (b) As a result,
action before the COA for its satisfaction. the petitioners were illegally dismissed; (c) As illegally dismissed employees,
they are entitled to separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, back wages, and
 other wage adjustments, but after deduction of the separation pay they plus other wage adjustments minus separation pay already received
already received under the restructuring plan; and (d) Counsels for the under the plan.
petitioners are entitled to a 10% charging lien.  On the other hand, the attorney's charging lien shall be 10% of the
o Thus, this resolution shall address only the new matters raised in the above- petitioners' entitlement, after deducting the separation pay already
mentioned pending motions. received by the petitioners under the restructuring plan.
o First, We affirm Our Resolution dated June 30, 2014 that PSALM is directly o Lastly, aside from the petitioners' entitlement, illegally dismissed employees
liable for the judgment obligation. are entitled to interest at the legal rate.
 While the general rule is that the NPC, as the employer guilty of illegal  The payment of legal interest is a "natural consequence of a final
dismissal, shall be liable for the petitioners' entitlement, PSALM judgment." Interest on the judgment award shall be computed as
assumed this obligation. follows: (1) 12% per annum from October 8, 2008, until June 30, 2013; and
 PSALM's assumption is clear based on the following reasons: (a) the (2) 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 onwards.
subject liability was already existing at the time of the EPIRA's effectivity
and was transferred from NPC to PSALM by virtue of Section 49 of the Issues Already Resolved with Finality
law; (b) the subject liability is a "Transferred Obligation" as defined o We observe that the NPC and PSALM have, up to this point, repeatedly and
under the Deed of Transfer; and (c) under the EPIRA, PSALM is duty- continuously defended the validity of NPB Resolution Nos. 2002-124 and
bound to settle this liability. 2002-125, as well as the resulting separation of NPC employees.
o Second, while PSALM is directly liable for the payment of the petitioners' o To recall, Our Main Decision dated September 26, 2006 and Resolution dated
entitlement, We direct the petitioners to follow the proper procedure to September 17, 2008 have already been entered in the Book of Entries of
enforce a judgment award against the government. Judgment.32 Thus, as we ruled in Our Resolution dated June 30, 2014, it is
 We have consistently ruled that the back payment of any compensation clear that these rulings have become final and executory.
to public officers and employees cannot be done through a writ of
execution. DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to:
 The COA has exclusive jurisdiction to settle "all debts and claims of any 1. GRANT PSALM's prayer to lift and quash the Demand for Immediate
sort due from or owing to the Government or any of its subdivisions, Payment and the Notices of Garnishment issued against it and the NPC;
agencies, and instrumentalities." 2. DENY the petitioners' request to immediately execute the judgment award;
 The proper procedure to enforce a judgment award against the and
government is to file a separate action before the COA for its satisfaction. 3. DIRECT the petitioners to file a claim against the government before the
 In other words, while the Court has determined that PSALM, a Commission on Audit, pursuant to its rules, which shall be resolved in
government owned and controlled corporation, is liable to the accordance with the guidelines herein set forth.
petitioners, it is for the COA to ascertain the exact amount of its liability
in accordance with its audit rules and procedures, after a separate money
claim for the satisfaction of the judgment award is properly filed.
o Third, as a matter of prudence, We also propose guidelines that shall aid the
COA in determining, re-computing, and validating the amount due to the
petitioners.
 The petitioners' entitlement shall be computed based on the following
general formula: Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement plus back wages