Ceneco's unending travails

Last week, I had a column giving the other side of the Ceneco's saga, the management side, after they sought me out to clarify certain matters I've been discussing in previous write-ups.

Prior to that, I've been asking Ceneco to be more transparent in their boardroom decisions so that the public may know and that I, too, would have basis for my columns and not just what one or the other says over the media.

I wanted to gloss over it last Friday but unfortunately, I heard the news that our only remaining aunt, from the Lopez side of the family, Tita Pen, passed away at 99-years old. Tita Pen used to be the chief nurse at the CLMMRH and continues to be adored by her nurses, unfailingly visiting her when they are in town.

Before her passing, she was the oldest living niece of one of our national heroes, Graciano Lopez Jaena. My mom's dad is the younger brother of Graciano and now that Tita Pen is gone, I am the oldest descendant of that side of our family unless someone wants to contest it, and I'll gladly hand over the baton.

At any rate, going back to Ceneco, when I wrote about asking whether the NLRC erred in its decision to reinstate dismissed general manager Sulpicio Lagarde, there were reactions coming from the other camp and as earlier mentioned as well, I welcome presentation of facts from all sides.

But since none has been given, let me talk about what I've been shown and what I've been told because this is not the first time that NLRC has heard such a case as what happened to Lagarde.

According to some sources, in a similar case, when NLRC received the complaint, they asked the complainant to forward the matter first to the National Electrification Administration which has jurisdiction over electric cooperatives.

To be clear about this, whenever a GM's performance is deemed poor by the Board of Directors, they need to advise NEA of its decision and request for the agency's approval. In it's resolution, the GM cannot be dismissed without NEA approval.

There is a clause however. If the Board feels that the welfare of the coop is “endangered,” they can suspend the GM while a final decision is reached or until NEA revokes the suspension. In other words, NEA should be furnished the basis of the dismissal so that their own lawyers can determine whether labor laws have been complied with.

In Lagarde's case, a resolution dismissing him was handed over to him that November 2014. The same resolution was forwarded to NEA for their action, which more or less, takes ten days. However, Ceneco board claims, Lagarde went straight to NLRC to file illegal dismissal charges against the Board without also waiting for NEA to address his issue.

As mentioned, a similar case was said to have been filed in the same haste procedure before the NLRC but instead of hearing the same, NLRC recommended the case to be forwarded to NEA for determination before them.

Now how come, this time around, they heard the case of Lagarde? Why did they not recommend Lagarde to seek clarification from NEA before accepting the same based on the findings of NEA?

If a process was violated, was it the Board who erred or was it Lagarde for bringing the same to NLRC knowing full well that NEA can actually accept or boot out the dismissal complaint against him. Was it too much to wait for NEA's decision within 10 days? Or was it because the Board had actually basis to seek for his removal from office?

In his decision, Labor Arbiter Tanoso said “in view of the overwhelming evidence showing that complainant was dismissed from service on November 27, 2014 and such termination was done without complying with provisions of NEA Memorandum no. 2004-022, particularly section 9, this Office has no other recourse but to declare complainant's termination from service was illegal.”

That Section 9 states actually as well that termination of a GM shall be in a form of resolution accompanied by an evaluation of his performance so that NEA can make a unilateral decision based on audit findings.

So what then was Tanoso's basis when he knows that NEA has yet to make a decision on the matter? In the same breath, the labor arbiter also said that grounds cited by the Ceneco board are within the competence and authority of NEA to pass upon. Isn't that odd? It would have been simpler really if NLRC, like in previous cases, advised that the matter be forwarded first to NEA for their decision before taking on the issue that actually is beyond their expertise.

As to Lagarde's claim that he was not given due process, I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt on the matter since I was also shown

minutes of several meetings and communications to explain his poor performance prior to the dismissal order. Perhaps, he can also explain by showing documents to counter this claim from the Board.

Again, I am open to both sides but it does not help Lagarde that he bashes everyone who goes against him like the UCAN. Although he was personally bashing UCAN's counsel and not the institution, it still is the same. The best way to counter claims other than your own is to show documents proving your side of the story.

There is more to this saga, believe me.*

back to top