By Dolly Yasa
BACOLOD City – The Eleventh Division of the Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the National Electrification Administration (NEA) holding Central Negros Electric Cooperative (Ceneco) directors liable for the illegal dismissal of Ceneco general manager Sulpicio Lagarde.
Documents furnished to Daily Guardian here Tuesday showed that the CA dismissed for lack of merit the petition for review filed by seven members of the Ceneco board of directors.
The petitioners were Arnel Lapore, Michael Maravilla, Paul Lizares, Robert Javellana, Martha Joyce Cuenca, Zenaida Lacson, and Vicente Tan.
The petitioners asked the CA to review the May 18, 2016 decision of the NLRC which ordered their 90-day suspension.
They first asked NEA to reconsider the NLRC decision but it was also denied in a resolution dated May 9, 2017.
The Ceneco directors then went to the CA, pointing out that NEA committed a grave error in relying on the NLRC decision which was still subject of judicial review.
They further alleged that there was no factual and legal basis for NEA to impose the penalty of suspension.
Lagarde was dismissed by the Ceneco board as general manager on Nov. 27, 2014 via Ceneco Resolution No. 10969. He then filed a case for illegal dismissal against Ceneco and the board before the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission.
Lagarde also filed an administrative complaint with NEA, praying for the revocation of resolution that sacked him from office and for the petitioners’ dismissal from service.
In an eight-page decision signed by Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario and concurred by Associate Justices Nina Antonio-Valenzuela and Perpetua Atal-Paño, the CA said the NLRC decision is final and executory by provision of law.
The appellate court also said that NEA did not solely rely on the NLRC decision in ruling that petitioners violated NEA Memorandum No. 2004-022.
In its decision, NEA had ascertained that the petitioners failed to seek the agency’s approval before removing Lagarde as general manager.
“We find that NEA observed that petitioners had effected Lagarde’s dismissal without seeking the requisite NEA approval because Ceneco Board Resolution No. 10969 stated that the dismissal was ‘effective immediately’ and not after obtaining the approval of NEA, and that it was Lagarde, and not the petitioners, who had notified the NEA about the Ceneco Board Resolution,” the CA decision read.
