138

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPCDAMA) vs.

National Power Corporation (NPC)
*

G.R. No. 156208. September 26, 2006.

NPC DRIVERS AND MECHANICS ASSOCIATION, (NPC

DAMA), represented by Its President ROGER S. SAN
JUAN, SR., NPC EMPLOYEES & WORKERS UNION
(NEWU) NORTHERN LUZON REGIONAL CENTER,
represented by its Regional President JIMMY D. SALMAN,
in their own individual capacities and in behalf of the
members of the associations and all affected officers and
employees of National Power Corporation (NPC), ZOL D.
MEDINA, NARCISO M. MAGANTE, VICENTE B. CIRIO,
JR., NECITAS B. CAMAMA, in their individual capacities
as employees of National Power Corporation, petitioners,
vs. THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION (NPC),
NATIONAL POWER BOARD OF DIRECTORS (NPB),
JOSE ISIDRO N. CAMACHO as Chairman of the National
Power Board of Directors (NPB), ROLANDO S. QUILALA,
as PresidentOfficerincharge/CEO of National Power
Corporation and Member of National Power Board, and
VINCENT S. PEREZ, JR., EMILIA T. BONCODIN,
MARIUS P. CORPUS, RUBEN S. REINOSO, JR.,
GREGORY L. DOMINGO and NIEVES L. OSORIO,
respondents.
Administrative Law Delegation of Powers The department
secretaries composing the National Power Board of Directors
(NPB) 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.We agree with petitioners. In enumerating
under Section 48 those who shall compose the National Power
Board of Directors, the legislature has vested upon these persons
the power to exercise their judgment and discretion in running
the affairs of the NPC. Discretion may be defined as the act or

the liberty to decide according to the principles of justice and ones

ideas of what is right and proper under the circumstances,
without willfulness or favor. Discretion, when applied to public
functionaries, means a power or right conferred upon them by law
of acting officially in certain circumstances, according to the
dictates of their own judgment and conscience, uncontrolled by
the judgment or conscience of others. It is to be presumed that in
naming the respective department heads as members of the board
of directors, the legislature chose these secretaries
_______________
*

FIRST DIVISION.

139

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006

139

NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPCDAMA) vs.

National Power Corporation (NPC)

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.
Same Same The rule that requires an administrative officer
to exercise his own judgment and discretion does not preclude him
from utilizing, as a matter of practical administrative procedure,
the aid of subordinates, so long as it is the legally authorized
official who makes the final decision through the use of his own
personal judgment.Respondents assertion to the contrary is not
tenable. The ruling in the case cited by respondents to support
their contention is not applicable in the case at bar. While it is
true that the Court has determined in the case of American
Tobacco Company v. Director of Patents, 67 SCRA 287 (1975), that
a delegate may exercise his authority through persons he
appoints to assist him in his functions, it must be stressed that
the Court explicitly stated in the same case that said practice is
permissible only when the judgment and discretion finally

exercised are those of the officer authorized by law.

According to the Court, the rule that requires an administrative
officer to exercise his own judgment and discretion does not
preclude him from utilizing, as a matter of practical
administrative procedure, the aid of subordinates, so long as it is
the legally authorized official who makes the final decision
through the use of his own personal judgment.
Same Same Where it is the representatives of the secretaries
of the different executive departments and not the secretaries
themselves who exercised judgment in passing the assailed
Resolution, this violated the duty imposed upon the specifically
enumerated department heads to employ their own sound
discretion in exercising the corporate powers of the National Power
Corporation.In the case at bar, it is not difficult to comprehend
that in approving NPB Resolutions No. 2002124 and No. 2002
125, it is the representatives of the secretaries of the different
executive departments and not the secretaries themselves who
exercised judgment in passing the assailed Resolution, as shown
by the fact that it is the signatures of the respective
representatives that are affixed to the questioned Resolutions.
This, to our mind, violates the duty imposed upon the specifically
enumerated department heads to employ their own sound
discretion in exercising the corporate powers of the NPC.
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
140

140

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPCDAMA) vs.
National Power Corporation (NPC)

Resolutions may be validly enacted. Hence, there being only three

valid votes cast out of the nine board members, namely those of
DOE Secretary Vincent S. Perez, Jr. Department of Budget and
Management Secretary Emilia T. Boncodin and NPC OIC
President Rolando S. Quilala, NPB Resolutions No. 2002124 and
No. 2002125 are void and are of no legal effect.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Injunction.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
V.V. Orocio and Associates Law Offices and Cornelio
P. Aldon for petitioners.
The Solicitor General for respondents.
CHICONAZARIO, J.:
Before Us is a special civil action for Injunction to enjoin
public respondents from implementing the National Power
Board (NPB) Resolutions No. 2002124 and No. 2002125,
both dated 18 November 2002, directing, among other
things, the termination of all employees of the National
Power Corporation (NPC) on 31 January 2003 in line with
the restructuring of the NPC.
On 8 June 2001, Republic Act No. 9136, otherwise
known as the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001
(EPIRA Law), was approved and signed into law by
President Gloria MacapagalArroyo, and took effect on 26
June 2001. Section 2(i) and Section 3 of the EPIRA Law
states:
Section 2. Declaration of Policy.It is hereby declared the policy
of the State:
xxxx
(i) To provide for an orderly and transparent privatization of
the assets and liabilities of the National Power Corporation
(NPC)
xxxx
Section 3. Scope.This Act shall provide a framework for the
restructuring of the electric power industry, including the
privatization of the assets of NPC, the transition to the desired
competitive structure, and the definition
141

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006

141

NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPCDAMA) vs.

National Power Corporation (NPC)
of the responsibilities
of the various government agencies and
1
private entities.
2

Under the EPIRA Law, a new National Power Board of

Directors was constituted composed of the Secretary of

Finance as Chairman, with the Secretary of Energy, the

Secretary of Budget and Management, the Secretary of
Agriculture, the DirectorGeneral of the National Economic
and Development Authority, the Secretary of Environment
and Natural Resources, the Secretary of Interior and Local
Government, the Secretary of the Department of Trade and
Industry, and the President of the National Power
Corporation as members.
On 27 February 2002, the Secretary of the Department
of Energy (DOE) promulgated the Implementing Rules and
Regulations
(IRR) of the EPIRA Law, pursuant to Section
3
77 thereof. Said IRR were approved by the Joint
Congressional Power Commission on even date.
Meanwhile, also in pursuant to the provisions of the EPIRA
Law, the DOE created the Energy Restructuring Steering
Committee (Restructuring Committee) to manage the
privatization and restructuring of the NPC, the National
Transmission Corporation (TRANSCO), and the Power
Sector Assets and Liabilities Corporation (PSALM).
_______________
1

Annex A of Petition Rollo, pp. 2425.

Section 48. National Power Board of Directors.Upon the passage of

this Act, Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6395, as amended, and Section 13
of Republic Act No. 7638, as amended, referring to the composition of the
National Power Board of Directors, are hereby repealed and a new Board
shall be immediately organized. The new Board shall be composed of the
Secretary of Finance as Chairman, with the following as members: the
Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Budget and Management, the
Secretary of Agriculture, the DirectorGeneral of the National Economic
and Development Authority, the Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources, the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government, the
Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry, and the President of
the National Power Corporation.
3

Section 77. Implementing Rules and Regulations.The DOE shall, in

consultation with relevant government agencies, the electric power

industry participants, nongovernment organizations and endusers,
promulgate the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of this Act
within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act, subject to the
approval by the Power Commission.
142

142

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPCDAMA) vs.

National Power Corporation (NPC)

To serve as the overall organizational framework for the

realigned functions of the NPC mandated under the EPIRA
Law, the Restructuring Committee proposed a new NPC
Table of Organization which was approved by the NPB
through NPB Resolution No. 200253 dated 11 April 2002.
Likewise, the Restructuring Committee reviewed the
proposed 2002 NPC Restructuring Plan and assisted in the
implementation of Phase I (Realignment) of said Plan, and
thereafter recommended to the NPB for approval the
adoption of measures pertaining to the separation and
hiring of NPC personnel. The NPB, taking into
consideration the recommendation of the Restructuring
Committee, thus amended the Restructuring Plan
approved under NPB Resolution No. 200253.
4
On 18 November 2002,
pursuant
to
Section
63
of the
5
EPIRA Law and Rule 33 of the IRR, the NPB passed NPB
Resolution No. 2002
_______________
4

Section 63. Separation Benefits of Officials and Employees of Affected

Agencies.National Government employees displaced or separated from

the service as a result of the restructuring of the electricity industry and
privatization of NPC assets pursuant to this Act, shall be entitled to either
a separation pay and other benefits in accordance with existing laws, rules
or regulations or be entitled to avail of the privileges provided under a
separation plan which shall be one and onehalf month salary for every
year of service in the government: Provided, however, That those who
avail of such privileges shall start their government service anew if
absorbed by any governmentowned successor company. In no case shall
there be any diminution of benefits under the separation plan until the
full implementation of the restructuring and privatization.
Displaced or separated personnel as a result of the privatization, if
qualified, shall be given preference in the hiring of the manpower
requirements of the privatized companies.
The salaries of employees of NPC shall continue to be exempt from the
coverage of Republic Act No. 6758, otherwise known as The Salary
Standardization Act.
With respect to employees who are not retained by NPC, the
Government, through the Department of Labor and Employment, shall
endeavor to implement retraining, job counseling, and job placement
programs.

RULE 33. SEPARATION BENEFITS

Section 1. General Statement on Coverage.

143

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006

143

NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPCDAMA) vs.

National Power Corporation (NPC)

124 which provided for the Guidelines on the Separation

Program of
_______________
This Rule shall apply to all employees in the National Government service as of 26
June 2001 regardless of position, designation or status, who are displaced or
separated from the service as a result of the Restructuring of the electricity
industry and Privatization of NPC assets: Provided, however, That the coverage
for casual or contractual employees shall be limited to those whose appointments
were approved or attested by the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
Section 2. Scope of Application.This Rule shall apply to affected personnel of
DOE, ERB, NEA and NPC.
Section 3. Separation and Other Benefits.
(a) The separation benefit shall consist of either a separation pay and other
benefits granted in accordance with existing laws, rules and regulations or
a separation plan equivalent to one and one half (11/2) months salary for
every year of service in the government, whichever is higher: Provided,
That the separated or displaced employee has rendered at least one (1)
year of service at the time of effectivity of the Act.
(b) The following shall govern the application of Section 3(a) of this Rule:
(i) With respect to NPC officials and employees, they shall be considered
legally terminated and shall be entitled to the benefits or separation pay
provided in Section 3(a) herein when the restructuring plan as approved by
the NPC Board shall have been implemented.
(ii) With respect to NEA officials and employees, they shall be considered
legally terminated and shall be entitled to the benefits or separation pay
provided in Section 3(a) herein when a restructuring of NEA is
implemented pursuant to a law enacted by Congress or pursuant to Section
5(a)(5) of Presidential Decree No. 269.
(iii) With respect to the affected Bureaus of the DOE, their officials and
employees shall be considered legally terminated and shall be entitled to
the benefits or separation pay provided in Section 3(a) herein when the re

organizational plan shall have been implemented as a result of the

Restructuring of the electric power industry.

144

144

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPCDAMA) vs.

National Power Corporation (NPC)

the NPC and the Selection and Placement of Personnel in

the NPC Table of Organization. Under said Resolution, all
NPC personnel
_______________
(c) The governing board or authority of the entities enumerated in Section 3(b)
hereof shall have the sole prerogative to hire the separated employees as
new employees who start their service anew for such positions and for such
compensation as may be determined by such board or authority pursuant
to its restructuring program. Those who avail of the foregoing privileges
shall start their government service anew if absorbed by any government
agency or any governmentowned successor company.
(d) In no case shall there be any diminution of benefits under the separation
plan until the full implementation of the Restructuring of the electric
power industry and the Privatization of NPC assets in accordance with the
approved Restructuring and Privatization schedule.
(e) For this purpose, Salary, as a rule, refers to the basic pay including the
thirteenth (13th) month pay received by an employee pursuant to his
appointment, excluding per diems, bonuses, overtime pay, honoraria,
allowances and any other emoluments received in addition to the basic pay
under existing laws.
(f) Likewise, Separation or Displacement refers to the severance of
employment of any official or employee, who is neither qualified under
existing laws, rules and regulations nor has opted to retire under existing
laws, as a result of the Restructuring of the electric power industry or
Privatization of NPC assets pursuant to the Act.
Section 4. Funding.
Funds necessary to cover the separation pay under this Rule shall be provided
either by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) or from the corporate
funds of the NEA or the NPC, as the case may be and in the case of the DOE and
the ERB, by the GSIS or from the general fund, as the case may be. The Buyer or
Concessionaire or the successor company shall not be liable for the payment of the
separation pay.

Section 5. Preferential Rights of Employees.

Displaced or separated personnel as a result of the Restructuring of the electric
power industry and Privatization of NPC assets shall be given preference in the
hiring of manpower requirements of the newlycreated offices or the privatized
companies: Provided, That the displaced or separated personnel meet the
prescribed qualifications. With

145

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006

145

NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPCDAMA) vs.

National Power Corporation (NPC)

shall be legally terminated on 31 January 2003, and shall

be entitled to separation benefits. On the same day, the
NPB approved NPB Resolution No. 2002125, whereby a
Transition Team was constituted to manage and
implement the NPCs Separation Program.
In a Memorandum dated 21 November 2002, the NPC
OICPresident and CEO Rolando S. Quilala circulated the
assailed Resolutions and directed the concerned NPC
officials to disseminate and comply with said Resolutions
and implement the same within the period provided for in
the timetable set in NPB Resolution No. 2002125. As a
result thereof, Mr. Paquito F. Garcia, Manager HRSD
and Resources and Administration Coordinator of NPC,
circulated a Memorandum dated 22 November 2002 to all
NPC officials and employees providing for a checklist of the
documents required for securing clearances for the
processing of separation benefits of all employees who shall
be terminated under the Restructuring Plan.
Contending that the assailed NPB Resolutions are void
and without force and effect, herein petitioners, in their
individual and representative capacities, filed the present
Petition for Injunction to restrain respondents from
implementing NPB Resolutions No. 2002124 and No.
2002125. In support thereof, petitioners invoke Section 78
of the EPIRA Law, to wit:
Section
78.
Injunction
and
Restraining
Order.The
implementation of the provisions of this Act shall not be
restrained or enjoined except by an order issued by the Supreme
Court of the Philippines.
_______________

respect to employees who are not retained by NPC, the government, through the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), shall endeavor to implement re
training, job counseling, and job placement programs.
Section 6. Implementation.
The DOE, NEA, and NPC, shall issue guidelines applicable to their respective
employees to implement this Rule within ninety (90) days from effectivity of these
Rules: Provided, That in the case of ERC, the independent quasijudicial body
created under the Act, the manner of, and timetable for, implementation of its
organization shall be governed by Section 38 and Section 39 of the Act.

146

146

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPCDAMA) vs.

National Power Corporation (NPC)

In assailing the validity of NPB Resolutions No. 2002124

and No. 2002125, petitioners maintain that said
Resolutions were not passed and issued by a majority of the
members of the duly constituted Board of Directors since
6
only three of its members, as provided under Section 48 of
the EPIRA Law, were present, namely: DOE Secretary
Vincent S. Perez, Jr. Department of Budget and
Management Secretary Emilia T. Boncodin and NPC OIC
President Rolando S. Quilala. According to petitioners, the
other four members who were present at the meeting and
signed the Resolutions were not the secretaries of their
respective departments but were merely representatives or
designated alternates of the officials who were named
under the EPIRA Law to sit as members of the NPB.
Petitioners claim that the acts of these representatives are
violative of the wellsettled 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.
It is petitioners submission that even assuming
arguendo that there was no undue delegation of power to
the four representatives who signed the assailed
Resolutions, said Resolutions cannot still be given legal
effect because the same did not comply with the mandatory
requirement of endorsement by the Joint Congressional
Power Commission and approval of the President of the

Philippines, as provided under Section 47 of the EPIRA

Law which states that:
Section 47. NPC Privatization.Except for the assets of SPUG,
the generation assets, real estate, and other disposable assets as
well as IPP contracts of NPC shall be privatized in accordance
with this Act. Within six (6) months from effectivity of this Act,
the PSALM Corp. shall submit a plan for the endorsement by the
Joint Congressional Power Commission and the approval of the
President of the Philippines, on the total privatization of the
generation assets, real estate, other disposable assets as well as
existing IPP contracts of NPC and thereafter, implement the
same, in accordance with the following guidelines, except as
provided for in paragraph (f) herein: x x x.
_______________
6

Supra note 2.
147

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006

147

NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPCDAMA) vs.

National Power Corporation (NPC)

Petitioners insist that if ever there exists a valid wholesale

abolition of their positions and their concomitant
separation form the service, such a process is an integral
part of privatization and restructuring as defined under
the EPIRA Law and, therefore, must comply with the
abovequoted provision requiring the endorsement of the
Joint Congressional Power Commission and the approval of
the President of the Philippines. Furthermore, petitioner
highlight the fact that said Resolutions will have an
adverse effect on about 5,648 employees of the NPC and
will result in the displacement of some 2,370 employees,
which, petitioners argue, is contrary to the mandate of the
Constitution to promote full employment and security of
tenure.
Respondents, on the other hand, uphold the validity of
the assailed Resolutions by arguing that while it is true
that four members of the National Power Board of
Directors, particularly the respective Secretaries of the
Department of Interior and Local Government, the
Department of Trade and Industry, and the Department of

Finance, as well as the DirectorGeneral of the National

Economic and Development Authority, were not the actual
signatories in NPB Resolutions No. 2002124 and No. 2002
125, they were, however, ably represented by their
respective alternates. 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.
From the arguments put forward by herein parties, it is
evident that the pivotal issue to be resolved in this Petition
for Injunction is whether or not NPB Resolutions No. 2002
124 and No. 2002125 were properly enacted. It is
petitioners contention that the failure
of the four
7
specifically identified department heads under Section 48
of the EPIRA Law to personally approve and sign the
assailed Resolutions invalidates the adoption of said
Resolutions. Petitioners maintain
_______________
7

Secretaries of the Department of Interior and Local Government, the

Department of Trade and Industry, and the Department of Finance, and

the DirectorGeneral of the National Economic and Development
Authority.
148

148

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPCDAMA) vs.

National Power Corporation (NPC)

that there was undue delegation of delegated power when

only the representatives of certain members of the NPB
attended the board meetings and passed and signed the
questioned Resolutions.
We agree with petitioners. In enumerating under
Section 48 those who shall compose the National Power
Board of Directors, the legislature has vested upon these
persons the power to exercise their judgment and
discretion in running the affairs of the NPC. Discretion
may be defined as the act or the liberty to decide according

to the principles of justice and ones ideas of what is right

and proper
under the circumstances, without willfulness or
8
favor. Discretion, when applied to public functionaries,
means a power or right conferred upon them by law of
acting officially in certain circumstances, according to the
dictates of their own judgment and conscience,
uncontrolled by the judgment or conscience of others.9 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.
There is no question that the enactment of the assailed
Resolutions involves the exercise of discretion and not
merely a ministerial act that could be validly performed by
a delegate, thus, the rule
enunciated in the case of
10
Binamira v. Garrucho
is relevant in the present
controversy, to wit:
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.
_______________
8

Lamb v. Phipps, 22 Phil. 456, 488489 (1912).

Id., at p. 489.

10

G.R. No. 92008, 30 July 1990, 188 SCRA 154, 159160.

149

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006

149

NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPCDAMA) vs.

National Power Corporation (NPC)
In those cases in which the proper execution of the office requires,
on the part of the officer, the exercise of judgment or discretion,

the presumption is that he was chosen because he was deemed fit

and competent to exercise that judgment and discretion, and,
unless power to substitute another in his place has been given to
him, he cannot delegate his duties to another.

Respondents assertion to the contrary is not tenable. The

ruling in the case cited by respondents to support their
contention is not applicable in the case at bar. While it is
true that the Court has determined in the11case of American
Tobacco Company v. Director of Patents that a delegate
may exercise his authority through persons he appoints to
assist him in his functions, it must be stressed that the
Court explicitly stated in the same case that said practice
is permissible only when the judgment and discretion
finally exercised are those of the officer authorized
by law. According to the Court, the rule that requires an
administrative officer to exercise his own judgment and
discretion does not preclude him from utilizing, as a matter
of practical administrative procedure, the aid of
subordinates, so long as it is the legally authorized official
who makes the final decision through the use of his own
personal judgment.
In the case at bar, it is not difficult to comprehend that
in approving NPB Resolutions No. 2002124 and No. 2002
125, it is the representatives of the secretaries of the
different executive departments and not the secretaries
themselves who exercised judgment in passing the assailed
Resolution, as shown by the fact that it is the signatures of
the respective representatives that are affixed to the
questioned Resolutions. This, to our mind, violates the duty
imposed upon the specifically enumerated department
heads to employ their own sound discretion in exercising
the corporate powers of the NPC. 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, namely those of DOE Secretary
Vincent S. Perez, Jr. Department of
_______________
11

G.R. No. L26803, 14 October 1975, 67 SCRA 287, 295.

150

150

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPCDAMA) vs.

National Power Corporation (NPC)

Budget and Management Secretary Emilia T. Boncodin

and NPC OICPresident Rolando S. Quilala, NPB
Resolutions No. 2002124 and No. 2002125 are void and
are of no legal effect.
Having determined that the assailed Resolutions are
void as they lack the necessary number of votes for their
adoption, We no longer deem it necessary to pass upon the
other issues raised in the instant petition.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, National Power
Board Resolutions No. 2002124 and No. 2002125 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. 2002124 and No. 2002125.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban (C.J., Chairperson), YnaresSantiago,
AustriaMartinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
National Power Board Resolutions declared void and
without legal effect. Petition for injunction granted.
Notes.The Court is not unmindful that there is a
trend towards delegating the legislative power to authorize
the operation of certain public utilities to administrative
agencies and dispensing with the requirement of a
congressional franchise, but this matter should be
addressed to Congress for the Courts function is to
interpret, not to rewrite the law. (Associated
Communications & Wireless ServicesUnited Broadcasting
Networks vs. National Telecommunications Commission,
397 SCRA 574 [2003])
Since Administrative Order No. 2 (the new
Implementing Rules and Regulations of Proclamation No.
347) merely allows the ex officio members of the National
Amnesty Commission to designate their representatives to
NAC meetings but not to decide for them while attending
such meetings, and although said administrative order
does not preclude the representatives from attending the
NAC meetings, they may do so only as guests or witnesses
to the proceedings. They cannot substitute for the ex officio

members for purposes of

151

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006

151

Young vs. Sy

determining quorum, participating in deliberations and

making decisions. (National Amnesty Commission vs.
Commission on Audit, 437 SCRA 655 [2004])
o0o

Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.