FACTS: Aklan Electric Cooperative, Inc (AKELCO) failed to pay its P25M obligation which resulted

to a power cut-off. NAPOCOR restored power upon learning of the NEA take-over. However,
respondent remained as General Manager. Respondent was soon terminated finding him guilty of wilful
breach of trust and confidence. Respondent filed a Manifestation and Supplemental motion before the
CA nullifying his removal on the ground that Sec. 10 (e) of PD 269 which provides for suspension or
removal and replacement is reserved solely to the NEA-BOA; and prays for reinstatement. CA granted
the motion. Hence, this petition. HELD: Petition granted. Respondents termination is valid. AKELCO-
BOD submitted its Board Resolutions suspending and removing respondent to NEA for approval,
therefore the former was acting pursuant to the authorization
FACTS: Aklan Electric Cooperative, Inc (AKELCO) failed to pay its P25M obligation which resulted
to a power cut-off. NAPOCOR restored power upon learning of the NEA take-over. However,
respondent remained as General Manager. Respondent was soon terminated finding him guilty of wilful
breach of trust and confidence. Respondent filed a Manifestation and Supplemental motion before the
CA nullifying his removal on the ground that Sec. 10 (e) of PD 269 which provides for suspension or
removal and replacement is reserved solely to the NEA-BOA; and prays for reinstatement. CA granted
the motion. Hence, this petition. HELD: Petition granted. Respondents termination is valid. AKELCO-
BOD submitted its Board Resolutions suspending and removing respondent to NEA for approval,
therefore the former was acting pursuant to the authorization
FACTS: Aklan Electric Cooperative, Inc (AKELCO) failed to pay its P25M obligation which resulted
to a power cut-off. NAPOCOR restored power upon learning of the NEA take-over. However,
respondent remained as General Manager. Respondent was soon terminated finding him guilty of wilful
breach of trust and confidence. Respondent filed a Manifestation and Supplemental motion before the
CA nullifying his removal on the ground that Sec. 10 (e) of PD 269 which provides for suspension or
removal and replacement is reserved solely to the NEA-BOA; and prays for reinstatement. CA granted
the motion. Hence, this petition. HELD: Petition granted. Respondents termination is valid. AKELCO-
BOD submitted its Board Resolutions suspending and removing respondent to NEA for approval,
therefore the former was acting pursuant to the authorization
FACTS: Aklan Electric Cooperative, Inc (AKELCO) failed to pay its P25M obligation which resulted
to a power cut-off. NAPOCOR restored power upon learning of the NEA take-over. However,
respondent remained as General Manager. Respondent was soon terminated finding him guilty of wilful
breach of trust and confidence. Respondent filed a Manifestation and Supplemental motion before the
CA nullifying his removal on the ground that Sec. 10 (e) of PD 269 which provides for suspension or
removal and replacement is reserved solely to the NEA-BOA; and prays for reinstatement. CA granted
the motion. Hence, this petition. HELD: Petition granted. Respondents termination is valid. AKELCO-
BOD submitted its Board Resolutions suspending and removing respondent to NEA for approval,
therefore the former was acting pursuant to the authorization
FACTS: Aklan Electric Cooperative, Inc (AKELCO) failed to pay its P25M obligation which resulted
to a power cut-off. NAPOCOR restored power upon learning of the NEA take-over. However,
respondent remained as General Manager. Respondent was soon terminated finding him guilty of wilful
breach of trust and confidence. Respondent filed a Manifestation and Supplemental motion before the
CA nullifying his removal on the ground that Sec. 10 (e) of PD 269 which provides for suspension or
removal and replacement is reserved solely to the NEA-BOA; and prays for reinstatement. CA granted
the motion. Hence, this petition. HELD: Petition granted. Respondents termination is valid. AKELCO-
BOD submitted its Board Resolutions suspending and removing respondent to NEA for approval,
therefore the former was acting pursuant to the authorization