High tribunal upholds state control of co-ops

The National Electric Administration has the authority to designate its officials and employees to electric co-operatives provided that they do not collect allowances or monetary benefits from these private enterprises.

The Supreme Court made this decision even as it reversed an earlier ruling of the Court of Appeals that sustained the 1992 order of the Civil Service Commission directing NEA to recall all designations of its employees to electric cooperatives and to desist from issuing designations of such kind.

The high tribunal said in a decision written by Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta that NEA’s designation of its personnel to electric cooperatives was part of the exercise of its power of supervision and control over the electric co-operatives.

The case arose from a complaint filed with the Civil Service Commission in 1991 by Pedro Ramos, a retired employee of the Batangas I Electric Cooperative Inc. Ramos alleged that since December 1988 NEA personnel Morena Vista and Regario Breta were receiving allowances from the co-op in addition to their regular compensation and allowances from their mother agency.

Vista and Breta had been appointed by NEA to Batelec I as project supervisor and acting general manager, and technical assistant to the project supervisor, respectively.

Ramos invoked 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 control and supervision, and allowing these personnel to receive allowances in addition to their regular compensation and allowances from NEA.

The CSC said such practice was not only beyond the import of the NEA charter, which was created by Presidential Decree 269, as amended by PD 1645—but also prejudicial to public interest and in violation of Republic Act 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for the Public Officials and Employees.

Acting on Ramos’ complaint, the commission in 1992 held that the designations of Vista and Breta were not in accordance with Resolution 89-911 and directed the agency to recall them.

This prompted the agency to assail the ruling before the appellate court. –Rey E. Requejo, Manila Standard Today