MANILA (PNA) — The Supreme Court rules that the National Electrification Administration (NEA) has the right to appoint officials and other representatives to private cooperatives as long as they do not collect any allowance from the institutions.
The SC ruling effectively reversed an earlier ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) that sustained the 1992 order of the Civil Service Commission (CSC), directing NEA to recall all designations of its employees to electric cooperatives and to desist from issuing designations of such kind.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed with the CSC in 1991 by Pedro Ramos, a retired employee of the Batangas I Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BATE-LEC I), alleging that since December 1988, NEA personnel Morena Vista and Regario Breta were receiving allowances from the cooperative in addition to their regular compensation and allowances from their mother agency.
The two had been earlier appointed by NEA to BATELEC I as project supervisor and acting general manager, and technical assistant to the project supervisor, respectively.
Ramos, in his complaint, cited CSC Resolution 89-911 that ruled as illegal the practice of designating NEA officials and employees to positions in electric coops, which are private entities under NEA’s control and supervision, and allowing these personnel to receive allowances in addition to their regular compensation.
Such practice, according to CSC, was not only beyond the import of the NEA Charter – which was created by Presidential Decree (PD) 269, as amended by PD 1645 – but also prejudicial to public interest and in violation of Republic Act (RA) 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for the Public Officials and Employees.
Acting on Ramos’ complaint, the CSC, in 1992, held that the designations of Vista and Breta were not in accordance with CSC Resolution 89-911 and directed NEA to recall and desist from issuing designations to electric coops in favor of its employees. NEA questioned the CSC order before the CA.
On May 11, 2000, the CA affirmed the CSC order as it pointed out that the appointment of NEA personnel to electric cooperatives involved a conflict of interest under Section 12 of the NEA law itself and Section 7(a) and (b) of RA 6713.
But in its decision, the SC ruled that NEA did not violate the laws cited by the appellate court considering that such designations were “primarily geared to protect the interest of the government and loans it extended to the cooperative.”
“Thus, any NEA personnel so designated in the electric cooperative cannot be considered as having direct or indirect interest in the cooperative for its own personal interest, but only for the purpose of protecting the interest of NEA as the primary source of funds for the electric cooperative,” the SC decision further said. |
