I.

II.
III.

Short Title: NPC-DAMA v. NPC

Full Title: NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC-DAMA) versus National
Power Corporation (NPC) G.R. No. 156208, September 26, 2006, C.J. Panganiban
Statement of Facts:

On June 8, 2001, Republic Act No. 9136 or the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of
2001 (EPIRA Law) was approved and signed by President Macapagal-Arroyo. It provides a
framework for the restructuring of the electric power industry, specifically (1) the privatization
of the assets of NPC, (2) the transition to the desired competitive structure, and (3) the definition
of the responsibilities of the various government agencies and private entities. Thus, under such
law, a new National Power Board of Directors (NPB) was constituted.
On February 27, 2002, in pursuant of the EPIRA Law, the Energy Restructuring Steering
Committee (Restructuring Committee) was created by the Secretary of the Department of Energy
to enact the first and second provisions stated above.
On November 18, 2002, the Restructuring Committee proposed a guideline to the NPB
which was modified and passed by the latter through Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No. 2002125. Said Resolutions provide that (1) all NPC personnel shall be legally terminated on January
31, 2003 and (2) the NPC personnel shall be entitled to separation benefits.
IV.

Statement of the Case

Petitioners filed a Petition for Injunction which assails the validity of the NPB
Resolutions by maintaining that no quorum existed during the NPB Resolutions meeting.
Petitioners argue that of the seven persons present in the meeting, only three are NPB
members. The remaining four are merely representatives of other NPB members not present in
the said meeting thus, rendering the said Resolutions void.
V.

Issue
Whether or not NPB Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125 were properly enacted.

VI.

Ruling

No, it was not. The legislature is the one who vested the power to exercise judgment and
discretion in running the affairs to the NPB. Discretion means a power or right conferred to
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.
Hence, the court held that 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 are also exemptions to the general rule. It was also held in the case of Binamira v.
Garrucho that:
An officer to whom 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 given the power to substitute another in his place has
been given to him, he cannot delegate his duties to another.
And in the case of American Tobacco Company v. Director of Patents:
A delegate may exercise his authority through persons he
appoints to assist him in his functionsonly when judgment and
discretion finally exercised are those of the officer authorized by
lawso 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, however, 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.
VII.

Dispositive Portion

Wherefore, National Power Board Resolutions No. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125 are
declared VOID and WITHOUT LEGAL EFFECT.