UNITED
CLAIMANTS ASSOCIATION OF NEA (UNICAN) v. NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION
ADMINISTRATION (NEA)G.R. No.
187107 January 31, 2012
FACTS:
In order to
enhance and accelerate the electrification of the whole country, including the privatization
of the National Power Corporation, Republic Act No. (RA) 9136, otherwise known
as the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA Law), was enacted, taking
effect on June 26, 2001. The law imposed upon NEA additional mandates such as
the restructuring of the electric power industry.
On August
28, 2002, former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order No.
119 directing the NEA Board to submit a reorganization plan. Thus, NEA Board
issued the assailed resolutions.
The Rules
and Regulations to implement RA 9136 were issued on February 27, 2002. Under
Sec. 3(b)(ii), Rule 33 of the Rules and Regulations, all the NEA employees and
officers are considered terminated and the 965 plantilla positions of NEA
vacant.
On
September 17, 2003, the Department of Budget and Management approved the NEA
Termination Pay Plan. Thereafter, the NEA implemented an early retirement program
denominated as the “Early Leavers Program,” giving incentives to those who
availed of it and left NEA before the effectivity of the reorganization plan.
The other employees of NEA were terminated effective December 31, 2003.
Hence, this
petition.
Petitioners
are former employees of NEA who were terminated from their employment with the implementation
of the assailed resolutions.
One of the
procedural issues alleged by respondent is that the remedy of injunction is no longer
available to petitioners inasmuch as the assailed NEA Board resolutions have
long been implemented. Respondent ground their argument on the untenability of
the petition on the ground of mootness.
Petitioners
contend that the principle of mootness is subject to exceptions, such as when
the case is of transcendental importance.
ISSUE:
Whether or
not the petition should be dismissed for being moot.
RULING:
A moot and academic
case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of
supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use
or value. Generally, courts decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it
on ground of mootness. However, supervening events, whether intended or
accidental, cannot prevent the Court from rendering a decision if there is a
grave violation of the Constitution. Even in cases where supervening events had
made the cases moot, the Court did not hesitate to resolve the legal or
constitutional issues raised to formulate controlling principles to guide the
bench, bar, and public.
As an
exception to the rule on mootness, courts will decide a question otherwise moot
if it is capable of repetition yet evading review.
In the instant case, while the assailed resolutions of the NEA Board may have long been implemented, such acts of the NEA Board may well be repeated by other government agencies in the reorganization of their offices. Petitioners have not lost their remedy of injunction.
Comments
Post a Comment