ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 168203 : March 9, 2010 NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner, v. VAL L. VILLANUEVA, Respondent. D E C I S I O N PERALTA, J.: Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul and set aside the Decision The undisputed facts are as follows: Herein respondent Val L. Villanueva (Villanueva) was an elected member of the Board of Directors (BOD) of Agusan del Norte Electric Cooperative (ANECO) for a term of three years, from 2001 to 2003. However, with the subsequent redistricting of the area he represented, his term was extended until 2006.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary In 2002, while serving as a member of the ANECO BOD, he was elected as Barangay Chairman of Barangay 12, in the Municipality of Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte. Thereafter, he was also elected as President of what was formerly known as the Association of Barangay Captains (ABC), now known as Liga ng mga Barangay (Liga), of Cabadbaran. By virtue of his position as Liga President, he sat as ex-officio member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Cabadbaran.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Subsequently, the General Manager of ANECO sought the opinion of herein petitioner National Electrification Administration (NEA) as to whether or not respondent is still qualified to sit as member of the ANECO BOD.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary In response to such query, the NEA Director for Co-Op Operations came out with the opinion, dated December 10, 2002, that respondent could no longer serve as a member of the ANECO BOD, because he was considered automatically resigned from the said position when he took his oath of office as Liga President. As basis of its opinion, the NEA Director for Co-Op Operations cited as authority the Local Government Code of 1991, NEA Memorandum dated February 13, 1998, and the Guidelines in the Conduct of Electric Cooperative District Elections. In a letter dated January 3, 2003, respondent sought the opinion of the Provincial Director of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) relative to his disqualification as a member of the ANECO BOD.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary In his letter On January 31, 2003, respondent requested review and reconsideration of the disputed opinion of the NEA Director for Co-Op Operations, but the same was denied in a letter dated February 17, 2003 by the NEA Chief Operating Officer/Deputy Administrator for Co-Op Development. Aggrieved by such denial, respondent filed with the RTC of Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte, a petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction against NEA and ANECO. On December 2, 2003, the RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining NEA and ANECO and their representatives, attorneys and agents from disqualifying respondent as member of the ANECO BOD or allowing him to continue attending meetings or sessions of the said BOD and granting him back all benefits, emoluments and remunerations due him on account of his disqualification. NEA and ANECO filed separate motions for reconsideration.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary On January 7, 2004, the RTC issued an Order Consequently, on February 10, 2004, the RTC issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction. On November 12, 2004 the RTC rendered its presently assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads, thus: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted. The injunction issued against respondent is hereby made permanent.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Respondents are likewise ordered to pay to petitioner the amount of Ph50,000.00 as attorney's fees and Ph50,000.00 as expenses of litigation. SO ORDERED. NEA filed a motion for reconsideration, but the RTC denied it in its Resolution Hence, the present petition raising the following issues:
cralawPetitioner contends that respondent went to court without first exhausting the administrative remedies available to him making his action premature or his case not ripe for judicial determination and, for that reason, he has no cause of action to ventilate in court.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Petitioner also avers that in coming up with its decision nullifying the order issued by the NEA, the RTC, in effect, deprived the Office of the President of its power to review the disputed order.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Petitioner further argues that the provision under the Guidelines in the Conduct of Electric Cooperative District Elections, which prohibits persons who hold an elective office in the government or appointed to an elective position above the level of Barangay Captain from being members of the BOD of an electric cooperative, applies not only to candidates for membership in the BOD but also to incumbent members thereof.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Lastly, petitioner asserts that the temporary restraining order issued by the RTC is invalid, because it was made effective beyond the 20-day period provided under the Rules of Court. The Court finds the petition meritorious.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary With respect to the procedural aspect of the case, respondent should have first exhausted the administrative remedies still available to him by appealing the challenged order of the NEA to the Office of the President, which exercises the power of supervision over it. Section 13, Chapter II of Presidential Decree No. 269 (PD 269), otherwise known as the National Electrification Administration Decree, provides that: Sec. 13 - Supervision over NEA; Power Development Council - The NEA shall be under the supervision of the Office of the President of the Philippines. All orders, rules and regulations promulgated by the NEA shall be subject to the approval of the Office of the President of the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied) Considering that the President has the power to review on appeal the orders or acts of petitioner NEA, the failure of respondent to undertake such an appeal bars him from resorting to a judicial suit. In the present case, respondent failed to exhaust his administrative remedies when he filed a case with the RTC without appealing the decision of the NEA to the Office of the President. As such, his petition filed with the RTC must necessarily fail.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary In any case, the main issue of whether respondent can still continue to be a member of the ANECO BOD after becoming an ex-officio member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Cabadbaran must be answered in the negative.
cralawThe above-quoted provisions find support in Salomon v. National Electrification Administration Although the disqualification mandated by the provisions [of PD 269] pertains to elective officers of the government, except barrio captains and councilors, the same is equally applicable to an appointed member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan which is an elective office. The prohibition should be construed to refer to a person holding an office, the assumption to which, while generally determined by an election, is not precluded by appointment. The purpose of the disqualification is to prevent incumbents of elective offices from exerting political influence and pressure on the management of the affairs of the cooperative. This purpose cannot be fully achieved if one who is appointed to an elective office is not made subject to the same disqualification.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary A person appointed to an elective office can exercise all powers and prerogatives attached to said office. Thus, an appointed member of a Sangguniang Panlalawigan, like petitioner, can wield as much pressure and influence on an electric cooperative, as an elected member thereof. Petitioner, having been appointed as member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of La Union, a position decidedly above the rank of Barangay Captain, cannot remain as Director of LUELCO without violating the spirit and intent of Section 21 P.D. No. 269, as amended x x x. The Court finds that, while the position to which the petitioner in the above-quoted ruling was appointed is different from the position to which herein respondent was named, the rule or principle enunciated above, nonetheless, applies squarely to the present case. Consequently, and in consonance with the Guidelines and Memorandum issued by the NEA, when respondent was designated as member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Cabadbaran, he became ineligible, and was thereby disqualified as member of the ANECO BOD.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary As to the issue of whether the temporary restraining order issued by the RTC remained valid even if it was beyond the 20-day period provided under the Rules of Court, it is settled that under Section 5, Rule 58 WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cabadbaran, Agusan Del Norte, Branch 34, dated November 12, 2004, and its Resolution dated April 6, 2005 in SP. Civil Case No. 03-03, are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The petition for certiorari therein filed is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. DIOSDADO M. PERALTA WE CONCUR: RENATO C. CORONA
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA A T T E S T A T I O N I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. RENATO C. CORONA C E R T I F I C A T I O N Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. REYNATO S. PUNO cralaw Endnotes:
|
|