Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    United Claimants Association Vs NEA

    Uploaded by

    Vinci Dabbay
    The petitioners, who were former employees of the National Electrification Administration (NEA), filed a petition directly with the Supreme Court challenging their termination from NEA. The NEA argued the petition should have been filed with the regional trial court instead of directly with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that while petitions should generally follow the hierarchy of courts, an exception can be made for special and important reasons. In this case, the termination of over 700 NEA employees at once represented a compelling reason to hear the case directly. However, the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition and upheld the resolutions that terminated the NEA employees.

    Copyright:

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

    United Claimants Association Vs NEA

    Uploaded by

    Vinci Dabbay
    31 views2 pages
    The petitioners, who were former employees of the National Electrification Administration (NEA), filed a petition directly with the Supreme Court challenging their termination from NEA. The NEA argued the petition should have been filed with the regional trial court instead of directly with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that while petitions should generally follow the hierarchy of courts, an exception can be made for special and important reasons. In this case, the termination of over 700 NEA employees at once represented a compelling reason to hear the case directly. However, the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition and upheld the resolutions that terminated the NEA employees.

    Original Description:

    Case digest

    Original Title

    United Claimants Association vs NEA

    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 petitioners, who were former employees of the National Electrification Administration (NEA), filed a petition directly with the Supreme Court challenging their termination from NEA. The NEA argued the petition should have been filed with the regional trial court instead of directly with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that while petitions should generally follow the hierarchy of courts, an exception can be made for special and important reasons. In this case, the termination of over 700 NEA employees at once represented a compelling reason to hear the case directly. However, the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition and upheld the resolutions that terminated the NEA employees.

    Copyright:

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

    United Claimants Association Vs NEA

    Uploaded by

    Vinci Dabbay
    The petitioners, who were former employees of the National Electrification Administration (NEA), filed a petition directly with the Supreme Court challenging their termination from NEA. The NEA argued the petition should have been filed with the regional trial court instead of directly with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that while petitions should generally follow the hierarchy of courts, an exception can be made for special and important reasons. In this case, the termination of over 700 NEA employees at once represented a compelling reason to hear the case directly. However, the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition and upheld the resolutions that terminated the NEA employees.

    Copyright:

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

    United Claimants association vs NEA shall in Consultation with the Electric

    power industry and end users


    - Under Sec. 3(b)(ii), Rule 33 of the Rules
    Facts and Regulations, all the NEA employees
    and officers are considered terminated
    - Petitioners are former employees of and the 965 plantilla positions of NEA
    NEA who were terminated from their vacant
    employment with the implementation - Under Sec. 3(b)(ii), Rule 33 of the Rules
    of the assailed resolutions and Regulations, all the NEA employees
    - Respondent NEA is a government- and officers are considered terminated
    owned and/or controlled corporation and the 965 plantilla positions of NEA
    created in accordance with Presidential vacant
    Decree No. (PD) 269 issued on August 6, - Meanwhile, on August 28, 2002, former
    1973. Under PD 269, Section 5(a)(5), the President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo
    NEA Board is empowered to organize or issued Executive Order No. 119
    reorganize NEA’s staffing structure directing the NEA Board to submit a
    section 5 - All of the powers of the reorganization plan. Thus, the NEA
    corporation shall be vested in and Board issued the assailed resolution
    exercised by a Board of Administrators, - On September 17, 2003, the
    which shall be composed of a Chairman Department of Budget and
    and four (4) members, one of whom Management approved the NEA
    shall be the Administrator as ex-officio Termination Pay Plan
    member. The Chairman and the three - the NEA implemented an early
    other members shall be appointed by retirement program denominated as
    the President of the Philippines to serve the "Early Leavers Program," giving
    for a term of six years incentives to those who availed of it
    - To establish policies and guidelines for and left NEA before the effectivity of
    employment on the basis of merit, the reorganization plan. The other
    technical competence and moral employees of NEA were terminated
    character, and, upon the effective December 31, 2003.
    recommendation of the Administrator
    to organize or reorganize NEA’s staffing The issues
    structure, to fix the salaries of
    On the other hand, respondents argue in their
    personnel and to define their powers
    Comment dated August 20, 2009 that:
    and duties
    - Republic Act No. (RA) 9136, otherwise Whether or not The Court has no jurisdiction
    known as the Electric Power Industry over the petition;?
    Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA Law), was
    NEA : Argues that petitioners violated the
    enacted, taking effect on June 26, 2001.
    principle of Hierarchy of Courts that it should be
    The law imposed upon NEA additional
    filed to the RTC first rather than the SC
    mandates in relation to the promotion
    of the role of rural electric cooperatives SC Ruling :
    to achieve national electrification
    Sec. 77 of RA 9136 – IRR That the DOE
    Yes, they violated the principle of hierarchy of This Court’s original jurisdiction to issue writs of
    courts, but it fall under the compelling reasons certiorari is not exclusive. It is shared by this
    to set aside for special and important reason Court with Regional Trial Courts and with the
    Court of Appeals. This concurrence of
    In the case of National Power Corporation
    jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as
    Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC-DAMA)
    according to parties seeking any of the writs an
    v. National Power Corporation (NPC) where in
    absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the
    they file a petition for injuction directly to the
    court to which application therefor will be
    SC . Despite such apparent disregard of the
    directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts.
    principle of hierarchy of courts, the petition was
    That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of
    given due course.
    appeals, and also serves as a general
    In the case at bar Evidently, the instant petition determinant of the appropriate forum for
    should have been filed with the RTC. However, petitions for the extraordinary writs. A
    as an exception to this general rule, the becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most
    principle of hierarchy of courts may be set aside certainly indicates that petitions for the
    for special and important reasons. Such reason issuance of extraordinary writs against first level
    exists in the instant case involving as it does the ("inferior") courts should be filed with the
    employment of the entire plantilla of NEA, more Regional Trial Court, and those against the
    than 700 employees all told, who were latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct
    effectively dismissed from employment in one invocation of the Supreme Court’s original
    swift stroke. This to the mind of the Court jurisdiction to issue these writs should be
    entails its attention. allowed only when there are special and
    important reasons therefor, clearly and
    specifically set out in the petition. This is [an]
    General RULE : Principle of Hierarchy of Court established policy. It is a policy necessary to
    should be followed prevent inordinate demands upon the Court’s
    time and attention which are better devoted to
    Exeption : those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction,
    the principle of hierarchy of courts may be set and to prevent further over-crowding of the
    aside for special and important reasons Court’s docket.
    (Compelling Reason )

    Dispositive part

    WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby


    DISMISSED. Resolution Nos. 46 and 59, dated
    July 10, 2003 and September 3, 2003,
    respectively, issued by the NEA Board of
    Directors are hereby UPHELD.

    Additional Info :

    Hinog v. Melicor, citing People v. Cuaresma,

    You might also like