ILOCOS SUR ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (ISECO) VS. NLRC
FACTS:
Sabio was employed as Manager of the Engineering Department of
petitioner ISECO an electric cooperative.
He was relieved of his duties and later on dismissed pursuant to
ISECOs Board Resolution which rooted from his act in writing the
ISECO Board of Directors questioning the expenses incurred by the
Acting General Manager, Bautista, and his excessive leave.
When Sabio was placed under preventive suspension without pay,
he filed a complaint for illegal suspension before the LA.
He was later dismissed by the petitioner when such petitioner
adopted the recommendation by the ad hoc committee finding Sabio
guilty of misconduct
Sabio then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with claim
for damages against petitioner with the NLRC.
The LA held that Sabio was illegally and unjustly dismissed
without due process of law and ordered for his reinstatement.
Petitioners appeal and MR were both dismissed.
Then, a petition for the issuance of a writ of execution was
submitted by Sabio.
Thus, petitioner filed this petition for certiorari questioning
the jurisdiction of the NLRC over termination cases involving
employees of electric cooperatives.
ISSE: WON NLRC has jurisdiction over cases involving employees
of electric cooperatives? HELD: YES. PD 269 pertains to (NATIONAL
ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION) NEAS power of supervision and
control over electric cooperatives and other borrowers, supervised
or controlled. There is nothing in said law which provides that the
NEA has the power to hear and decide termination cases of employees
in electric cooperatives. In the present case, there is no dispute
that Sabio is an employee of ISECO whose services were terminated.
The dismissal arose from purely labor dispute which falls within
the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and
the NLRC. Moreover, the NLRCs jurisdiction was only raised for the
first time in this petition. Petitioners did not question the
jurisdiction of the LA either in a motion to dismiss or in their
answer. In fact, petitioner participated in the proceedings before
the LA, as well as in the NLRC to which they appealed the Labor
Arbiters decision. It has been consistently held by this court that
while jurisdiction may be assailed at any stage, a partys active
participation in the proceedings before a court without
jurisdiction will estop such party from assailing such lack of
it.
