Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ENRIQUE U. BETOY v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 204800 2014-10-14	NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION v. COA PERALTA, J.
This was highlighted in Betoy v. The Board of Directors, National Power Corporation,[33] wherein we delved into the spirit of the EPIRA Law in granting separation benefits to the employees affected by the reorganization, thus: Even in the deliberations of Congress during the passage of R.A. No. 9136, it was manifest that it was not the intention of the law to infringe upon the vested rights of NPC personnel to claim benefits under existing laws. To assure the worried and uneasy NPC employees, Congress guaranteed their entitlement to a separation pay to tide them over in the meantime. More importantly, to further allay the fears of the NPC employees, especially those who were nearing retirement age, Congress repeatedly assured them in several public and congressional hearings that on top of their separation benefits, they would still receive their retirement benefits, as long as they would qualify and meet the requirements for its entitlement.
	GR No. 156208 2014-06-30	NPC DRIVERS v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION BRION, J.
After the filing of the parties' memoranda and pending resolution of the issues raised, the Court received numerous letters of appeal and motions to resolve the pending incidents and to lift the status quo order. It is not amiss to note that on October 4, 2011, the Court rendered a ruling in a related case of Betoy v. The Board of Directors, National Power Corporation,[51] where we reiterated the contents of the December 2, 2009 Resolution on the nullity of NPB Resolution Nos. 2002-214 and 2002-125 and its effect on the employment of all NPC employees.
	GR No. 199439 2014-04-22	CITY OF GENERAL SANTOS v. COA LEONEN, J.
In Betoy v. The Board of Directors, NAPOCOR,[61] this court explained that a streamlining of organization for a more efficient system must pass the test of good faith in order to be valid: A reorganization involves the reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions.[62] It could result in the loss of one's position through removal or abolition of an office. However, for a reorganization for the purpose of economy or to make the bureaucracy more efficient to be valid, it must pass the test of good faith; otherwise, it is void ab initio.[63] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 187107 2012-01-31	UNITED CLAIMANTS ASSOCIATION OF NEA v. NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION VELASCO JR., J.
In Betoy v. The Board of Directors, National Power Corporation,[4] the Court upheld the dismissal of all the employees of the NPC pursuant to the EPIRA Law. In ruling that the power of reorganization includes the power of removal, the Court explained: [R]eorganization involves the reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions. It could result in the loss of one's position through removal or abolition of an office. However, for a reorganization for the purpose of economy or to make the bureaucracy more efficient to be valid, it must pass the test of good faith; otherwise, it is void ab initio. (Emphasis supplied.)