Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • KKERB Vs Commissioner Fe Barin

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Soriano
    57 views1 page
    The Kapisanan Ng Mga Kawani Ng Energy Regulatory Board (KERB) asserted that the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) was not validly abolished and instead underwent an invalid reorganization due to the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) performing substantially the same functions. The Supreme Court held that the abolition of the ERB was valid because the ERC was given new and expanded functions needed for a deregulated power industry, making it a new office. An abolition is valid if done in good faith by a legitimate body for reasons such as economy, removing redundancy, or following a clear constitutional mandate.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    KKERB vs Commissioner Fe Barin.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Kapisanan Ng Mga Kawani Ng Energy Regulatory Board (KERB) asserted that the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) was not validly abolished and instead underwent an invalid reorganization due to the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) performing substantially the same functions. The Supreme Court held that the abolition of the ERB was valid because the ERC was given new and expanded functions needed for a deregulated power industry, making it a new office. An abolition is valid if done in good faith by a legitimate body for reasons such as economy, removing redundancy, or following a clear constitutional mandate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    57 views1 page

    KKERB Vs Commissioner Fe Barin

    Uploaded by

    Patrick Soriano
    The Kapisanan Ng Mga Kawani Ng Energy Regulatory Board (KERB) asserted that the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) was not validly abolished and instead underwent an invalid reorganization due to the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) performing substantially the same functions. The Supreme Court held that the abolition of the ERB was valid because the ERC was given new and expanded functions needed for a deregulated power industry, making it a new office. An abolition is valid if done in good faith by a legitimate body for reasons such as economy, removing redundancy, or following a clear constitutional mandate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No. 150974. June 29, 2007. CARPIO, J.

    KAPISANAN NG MGA KAWANI NG ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, petitioner,


    vs.
    COMMISSIONER FE B. BARIN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS CARLOS R. ALINDADA,
    LETICIA V. IBAY, OLIVER B. BUTALID, and MARY ANNE B. COLAYCO, of the ENERGY
    REGULATORY COMMISSION, respondents.

    Digested by: Kathleen Kaye M. Laurente

    Facts:
    RA 9136, popularly known as EPIRA (for Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001), was
    enacted on 8 June 2001 and took effect on 26 June 2001. Section 38 of RA 9136 provides for the
    abolition of the existing Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) and the creation of the (Energy
    Regulatory Commission) ERC.

    Kapisanan Ng Mga Kawani Ng Energy Regulatory Board (KERB) asserts that there was no valid
    abolition of the ERB but there was merely a reorganization done in bad faith, as expressed under
    in Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6656 (RA 6656):

    b. Where an office is abolished and another performing substantially the same


    functions is created;

    Issue:
    Whether or not Section 38 of RA 9136 is a valid abolition of ERB

    Held:

    Yes. Section 38 of RA 9136 is a valid abolition of ERB. A valid order of abolition must not only
    come from a legitimate body, it must also be made in good faith. An abolition is made in good
    faith when it is not made for political or personal reasons, or when it does not circumvent
    the constitutional security of tenure of civil service employees.

    Abolition of an office may be brought about by reasons of economy, or to remove


    redundancy of functions, or a clear and explicit constitutional mandate for such
    termination of employment.

    After comparing the functions of the ERB and the ERC, the Supreme Court found that the ERC
    indeed assumed the functions of the ERB. However, the overlap in the functions of the ERB and
    of the ERC does not mean that there is no valid abolition of the ERB. The ERC has new and
    expanded functions which are intended to meet the specific needs of a deregulated power
    industry.

    Doctrine:
    If the newly created office has substantially new, different or additional functions, duties or
    powers, so that it may be said in fact to create an office different from the one abolished, even
    though it embraces all or some of the duties of the old office it will be considered as an
    abolition of one office and the creation of a new or different one. The same is true if one
    office is abolished and its duties, for reasons of economy are given to an existing officer or office.

    You might also like