G.R. No. 156208 June 30, 2014
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., and 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 President -Officer-in-charge/CEO of National Power Corporation and Member of National Power Board, and VINCENT S. PEREZ, JR., EMILIA T. BONCODIN, MARIUS P. CORPUS, RUBENS. REINOSO, JR., GREGORY L. DOMINGO, NIEVES L. OSORIO and POWER SECTOR ASSETS and LIABILITIES MANAGEMENT (PSALM), Respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a September 26, 2006 Decision which declared null and without legal effect NPB Resolution Nos. 2002-124 and 2002-125 that directed the termination of all NPC employees on January 31, 2003, pursuant to the restructuring under the EPIRA law. The Court enjoined their implementation. Motions for reconsideration were denied with finality. A September 17, 2008 Resolution clarified that petitioners had the right to reinstatement or separation pay plus backwages and other benefits, deducting previously received separation benefits under the null resolutions. It also approved a 10% charging lien for petitioners’ attorneys. Entry of judgment was made on October 10, 2008.
On November 14, 2008, petitioners moved for execution. A December 10, 2008 Resolution granted execution and ordered NPC officials to prepare, under oath, a list of all affected employees and the amounts due them, pay these amounts, and submit proof of compliance. NPC’s subsequent compliance on March 9, 2009 submitted an unsworn list of only 16 top-level employees. Petitioners moved to cite respondents in contempt and to garnish NPC and PSALM assets. PSALM, though not originally a party, filed a manifestation contesting garnishment of its assets.
In a December 2, 2009 Resolution, the Court ordered respondents to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for willful failure to comply, and directed them to submit a complete list of all affected personnel to the sheriff. It also ordered PSALM impleaded as a party-respondent as NPC’s transferee-in-interest. This led to the pending motions: petitioners’ motion to cite respondents in contempt; NPC’s motion for reconsideration and to refer the case en banc; NPC’s plea to defer execution; NPC’s motion to direct sheriffs to show cause; PSALM’s motion for reconsideration of the December 2, 2009 Resolution; and PSALM’s urgent motion for a TRO.

ISSUE

The primary issues revolve around the execution of the final and executory September 26, 2006 Decision and September 17, 2008 Resolution, specifically: 1) Whether respondents should be held in contempt for failure to comply with the Court’s orders; 2) Whether the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management (PSALM) can be held liable for NPC’s obligations and its assets subjected to garnishment; and 3) Whether the execution should be deferred pending the resolution of the motions for reconsideration.

RULING

The Court denied all pending motions. It held that the September 26, 2006 Decision and September 17, 2008 Resolution were final and executory, and the duty to execute them is mandatory and ministerial. The NPC’s failure to submit a complete, sworn list of all affected employees constituted willful disobedience justifying contempt. The Court affirmed that PSALM, created under the EPIRA, is the transferee of NPC’s assets and liabilities and is therefore liable for NPC’s obligations arising from the illegal dismissals. PSALM’s assets can be garnished to satisfy the judgment. The motions for reconsideration filed by NPC and PSALM were mere reiterations of previously resolved issues and did not present compelling reasons to warrant a deviation from the final judgment. The Court also found no merit in the motions to refer the case to the Court en banc or to issue a temporary restraining order against execution.