G.R. NO. 164602 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, VS. ROEL R. DEGAMO.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, the Order of National Power Corporation, dropping Roel Degamo from the rolls, is hereby SET ASIDE. Respondent National Power Corporation is directed to reinstate ROEL DEGAMO to his previous position or that of an equivalent rank with correspondent payment of back salaries sans the other prayed for damages (moral, exemplary, etc.) which is not within the competence of this forum to award. [17] The Director declared that, based on the pleadings of the parties It is noteworthy to point out that the substantial allegations in the complaint have not been refuted by respondent National Power Corporation. As alleged in par. 7 of their answer, respondent claims to have insufficient knowledge to be able to affirm or deny the allegations made in paragraphs 3 to 22, and par. 25. Such denial is not well-taken. We wonder why no discussion was even made regarding the validity or invalidity of the NPC Office Order transferring complainant Roel Degamo to the Palinpinon Geothermal Power Plant I, Negros Oriental Power Plant Complex? Considering that this office order is purportedly signed by high ranking NPC officials, at the very least respondent NPC could have either affirmed or denied its validity or authenticity. We find this material since this is the basis why complainant Roel Degamo initially left his assignment at Power Barge 107, Integrated Barge Management Dept. [18] The NPC appealed the decision to the Civil Service Commission which issued Resolution No. 010525, on March 2, 2001, granting the appeal of the NPC and reversing the decision of the Regional Director. The CSC ruled that the unnumbered and undated office order had not been registered in the records of the NPC. It disbelieved the telephone bills of Degamo as proof of his claim that he repeatedly called up the Manila, Cebu, Dumaguete Offices, at the Iloilo Office of the NPC, inquiring about his employment status and his pending request for transfer. The CSC also ruled that the appointment of Degamo was co-terminus with the project; hence, terminated upon the completion of the project. [19] On November 15, 2001, the CSC issued a Resolution [20] denying the motion for reconsideration of Degamo of its first resolution. Degamo filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) which rendered a Decision on December 11, 2003, reversing the Resolution of the CSC. NPC received a copy of the decision of the CA on February 20, 2000 and had until March 6, 2004 within which to file its motion for reconsideration thereto. However, the NPC failed to do so. Instead, on March 10, 2004, it filed a Motion for Leave to Admit its motion for reconsideration of the decision. The NPC appended to its motion a Notice of Termination dated January 29, 2003 approved by the Board of Directors of the respondent, on November 18, 2002, [21] addressed to all officials and employees of the NPC based on Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9136. The CA granted its motion and admitt