SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 213956. November 10, 2021.]
MELCHORA AMBALONG, CHAIR EMERITA OF LANAO POWER CONSUMERS FEDERATION, EMIR CASTRO, ATTY. CHRISTOPHER VICERA, GIL GABRIEL, ATTY. RIZALINO C. VINEZA, EDGARDO REA, EDGAR BUSTAMANTE, LUCITA GUZMAN, CONRADO BARREDO, JR., ETHEL BUSTAMANTE, MYRNA CAGUIOA, PAMELA PAYABYAB, AND LORNA SARDANAS, ALL TAXPAYERS AND RATEPAYERS, petitioners, vs.CLERK OF COURT AND EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION ("NPC"), POWER SECTOR ASSETS AND LIABILITIES MANAGEMENT CORPORATION ("PSALM"), NPC DRIVERS AND MECHANICS ASSOCIATION (NPC DAMA), respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 November 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 213956 (Melchora Ambalong, Chair Emerita of Lanao Power Consumers Federation, Emir Castro, Atty. Christopher Vicera, Gil Gabriel, Atty. Rizalino C. Vineza, Edgardo Rea, Edgar Bustamante, Lucita Guzman, Conrado Barredo, Jr., Ethel Bustamante, Myrna Caguioa, Pamela Payabyab, and Lorna Sardanas, all taxpayers and ratepayers v. Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, National Power Corporation ("NPC"), Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation ("PSALM"), NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC DAMA)). — Before the Court is a Petition 1 filed by Melchora Ambalong, Emir Castro, Atty. Christopher Vicera, Gil Gabriel, Atty. Rizalino C. Vineza, Edgardo Rea, Edgar Bustamante, Lucita Guzman, Conrado Barredo, Jr., Ethel Bustamante, Myrna Caguioa, Pamela Payabyab, and Lorna Sardanas (petitioners) as taxpayers and ratepayers praying that the execution of the Court's judgment in NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association v. National Power Corp. docketed as G.R. No. 156208 be enjoined and that the judgment be nullified.
Antecedents
The present petition cites incidents relative to NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association v. National Power Corp., docketed as G.R. No. 156208 (Main Case). The case stemmed from National Power Corporation (NPC)'s privatization and restructuring pursuant to Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) 2 and the National Power Board (NPB)'s issuance of Resolution Nos. 2002-124 and No. 2002-125. The issuances implemented a restructuring plan directing the termination from service of all NPC employees effective January 31, 2003. 3
On September 26, 2006, the Court promulgated its Decision 4 (Main Decision) nullifying the above-mentioned NPB Resolutions and enjoining the implementation thereof.
In the Resolution 5 dated September 17, 2008, the Court clarified that, in view of the NPB Resolutions' nullity, the NPC employees' termination was deemed illegal. Thus, they were awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, backwages including wage adjustments, and all other benefits, but after deducting any amount of separation benefits already received under the voided NPB Resolutions. Further, the Court approved a 10% charging lien in favor of the NPC employees' counsel. 6
The Main Decision became final and executory on October 10, 2008. It was recorded in the book of entries of judgment on October 27, 2008.
In the Resolution dated December 10, 2008, the Court directed (1) the NPB members to submit a verified list of all NPC employees terminated pursuant to the now-defunct NPR Resolutions; and (2) herein respondents Office of the Clerk of Court and ex-officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City to issue a writ of execution and take all necessary actions to execute the Main Decision and subsequent Court Resolution. 7
In view of the impending execution of judgment, the employees of herein respondent NPC, represented by NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC DAMA), sought the garnishment and/or levy of NPC's assets, including those of the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM). 8
In the Resolution 9 dated December 2, 2009, the Court held that PSALM's assets may be the subject of the execution of the case, pursuant to its statutory obligation to assume NPC's existing generation assets, liabilities, Independent Power Producers' contracts, real estate, and other disposable assets. In other words, PSALM's properties may be used to satisfy the judgment. 10
In the Resolution 11 dated June 30, 2014, the Court ruled that the legal interest shall accrue on the judgment debt from October 10, 2008 until its satisfaction. 12
On July 31, 2014, after issuance of a Demand for Immediate Payment dated July 28, 2014, served upon the NPC and PSALM, the RTC Clerk of Court and ex-officio Sheriff sought to clarify the effects of the Resolution 13 dated June 30, 2014 and whether the judgment may be executed.
Without awaiting the Court's action on their query, the RTC Clerk of Court and ex-officio Sheriff issued Notices of Garnishment addressed to Manila Electric Company (Meralco), National Transmission Commission (TransCo), and Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank), with respect to NPC and/or PSALM credits or bank accounts in their possession. 14
In the Resolution dated September 9, 2014, the Court directed the RTC Clerk of Court and ex-officio Sheriff (a) to defer the implementation of the Main Decision and the subsequent Resolutions until further notice; and (b) to lift the Notices of Garnishment. 15
One week later, on September 16, 2014, herein petitioners filed the present action with the following prayer:
Wherefore, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court:
1. Issue a Writ of Preliminary Injunction extending the Temporary Restraining Order issued Against the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of Quezon City RTC pending the resolution of the instant case on the merits; and thereafter.
2. After giving due course to the petition and exchange of pleadings and Memoranda, render a Decision making the injunction permanent and nullifying the Decision in G.R. No. 156208, for lack of jurisdiction due to absence of indispensable parties.
Other reliefs, just and equitable are likewise prayed for. 16
In the main, petitioners assert that they have locus standi to file the present action 17 and are indispensable parties in G.R. No. 156208, 18 because "[u]ltimately, the cost of satisfying the NPC DAMA claims will be passed on to the public that any liability unpaid by PSALM at the end of its corporate term shall be assumed by the National Government." 19 Furthermore, they find the decision unfair, unjust, and inequitable. 20
On the other hand, in their respective Comments, NPC 21 and PSALM 22 sought to refer the present action to the Court En Banc. The parties made the same request in G.R. No. 156208, where they were also co-respondents.
In the meantime, during the pendency of the present action, the Court sitting En Banc issued a Resolution 23 dated November 21, 2017 disposing of key pending incidents in G.R. No. 156208, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to:
1. GRANT PSALM's prayer to lift and quash the Demand for Immediate Payment and the Notices of Garnishment issued against it and the NPC;
2. DENY the petitioners' request to immediately execute the judgment award; and
3. DIRECT the petitioners to file a claim against the government before the Commission on Audit, pursuant to its rules, which shall be resolved in accordance with the guidelines herein set forth.
SO ORDERED. 24
The Court underscored the final and executory character of the Main Decision and the Court's subsequent Resolutions and made the following pronouncements: first, PSALM is directly liable for the judgment obligation; second, the back payment of any compensation to public officers and employees cannot be done through a writ of execution, and the judgment award must be enforced through a separate money claim filed before the Commission on Audit (COA); and third, in determining, re-computing, and validating the amount due to the NPC employees, the COA may be guided by the guidelines proposed by the Court.
Our Ruling
The Court dismisses the petition.
In the present case, petitioners seek two chief reliefs: first, to permanently enjoin respondents RTC Clerk of Court and ex-officio Sheriff from executing the Main Decision and subsequent Resolutions; and second, to nullify the Main Decision on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
The first relief has become moot. It is a matter addressed directly by the Court's Resolution dated November 21, 2017, wherein the Court dissolved the implementing writs issued by the RTC Clerk of Court and the ex-officio Sheriff and declared that the judgment award cannot be satisfied through execution proceedings before the trial court.
The Court cannot exercise its power of judicial review over an issue that has become moot because it no longer presents a justiciable controversy. It would be a pointless endeavor for the Court to proceed to resolve a case wherein "the judgment will not serve any useful purpose or have any practical legal effect because, in the nature of things, it cannot be enforced." 25
On the other hand, the immutability of the Main Decision bars petitioners' entitlement to the second relief. To be sure, they filed the present action on September 16, 2014, almost six years after the Main Decision had become final and executory on October 10, 2008.
Parenthetically, petitioners who have asserted themselves as taxpayers and ratepayers are strangers to the dispute in the Main Case (G.R. No. 156208). They are neither (a) NPC employees who had been terminated or otherwise affected by the implementation of the now-defunct NPB Resolutions or (b) the juridical entities (NPC, PSALM, etc.) against whom payment or satisfaction of the judgment obligation is sought. At best, their interest in the controversy (e.g., that the case's outcome will be borne ultimately by the public at large) is speculative. That they would not have or will not sustain direct injury 26 as a result of the assailed NPB Resolutions or implementation of the Main Decision only shows that herein petitioners lack the requisite legal standing. They did not intervene directly in G.R. No. 156208 and, yet, the Court resolved completely the matters therein even without their participation. It is clear that petitioners are not indispensable parties entitled to compulsory joinder in those proceedings 27 or any relief therefrom.
In these lights, the Court shall no longer belabor the minute matters raised in the petition.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-27.
2. Republic Act No. (RA) 9136, June 8, 2001.
3.NPC Drivers and Mechanics Assn. (NPC DAMA) v. The National Power Corporation, 821 Phil. 62 (2017).
4.NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association v. National Power Corporation (NPC), 534 Phil. 233 (2006).
5.NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (NPC DAMA) v. National Power Corporation (NPC), 587 Phil. 189 (2008).
6.Id. at 207, 215-216.
7.NPC Drivers and Mechanics Assn. (NPC DAMA) v. National Power Corporation (NPC), supra note 5.
8.Id.
9.NPC Drivers and Mechanics Assoc. (NPC DAMA) v. National Power Corporation (NPC), 621 Phil. 376 (2009).
10.Id. at 399.
11.NPC Drivers and Mechanics Assoc. v. The NPC, 737 Phil. 210 (2014).
12.Id. at 260.
13.NPC Drivers and Mechanics Assoc. v. The NPC, supra note 12.
14.NPC Drivers and Mechanics Assn. (NPC DAMA) v. National Power Corporation (NPC), supra note 4 at 73.
15.Id. at 74.
16.Rollo, p. 26.
17.Id. at 12.
18.Id. at 14.
19.Id. at 16.
20.Id. at 16.
21.Id. at 109-116.
22.Id. at 82-99.
23.NPC Drivers and Mechanics Assn. (NPC DAMA) v. National Power Corporation (NPC), supra note 4.
24.Id. at 116.
25.Peñafrancia Sugar Mill, Inc. v. Sugar Regulatory Administration, 728 Phil. 535, 540 (2014).
26.Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Aquino, G.R. No. 210500, April 2, 2019.
27. Section 7, Rule 3, Rules of Court.