August 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > August 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 176935 : August 10, 2009] ZAMBALES II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (ZAMECO II) BOARD OF DIRECTORS, EL AL., PETITIONERS, V. CASTILLEJOS CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (CASCONA) ET AL RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. NO. 176936]
ZAMBALES 11 ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (ZAMECO II) BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ET AL., PETITIONERS, V. NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. :
SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 176935 : August 10, 2009]
ZAMBALES II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (ZAMECO II) BOARD OF DIRECTORS, EL AL., PETITIONERS, V. CASTILLEJOS CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (CASCONA) ET AL RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. NO. 176936]
ZAMBALES 11 ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (ZAMECO II) BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ET AL., PETITIONERS, V. NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 10 August 2009:
G.R. No. 176935 - Zambales II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ZAMECO II) Board of Directors, el al., petitioners, v. Castillejos Consumers Association, Inc. (CASCONA) et al respondents.
G.R. No. 176936 - Zambales 11 Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ZAMECO II) Board of Directors, et al., petitioners, v. National Electrification Administration, et al., respondents.
In its Motion for Partial Reconsideration dated May 4, 201)9 addressing the Court's decision of March 13, 2009, the petitioners takes exception to the Court's pronouncement that NEA's regulatory power over electric cooperatives is not dependent on the existence of a creditor-debtor relationship between NEA and the electric cooperative. They posit thai on the basis of the principle of ejusdem generis and the Philreca [1] ruling, regulatory powers under Section 5 of P.D. No. 269, as amended by P.D. No. 1645, are based on die existence o( a creditor-debtor relationship between NEA and the electric cooperative.
The petitioners also argue that a remand of the case for factual determination of the validity of ZAMECO II.'s CDA .registration is not necessary since Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6938[2] (under which ZAMECO II was registered) and Article 17 of Republic Act No. 9520[3] provide that a certificate of registration issued by the CDA is conclusive evidence that die cooperative is duly registered unless proof exists that the registration has been cancelled.
We find no merit in these contentions.
The petitioners invoked ihe principle of ejusdem generis for ihe first time in their motion for reconsideration. We cannot consider new issues so presented, i.e., raised at this very late stage in the proceedings: consideration of these issues at this point would violate the basic principles of fair play, justice and due process.[4] Procedurally, invocation of the issue is nothing but a desperation move through a shift to a new theory, to raise a new matter alter the original theories and issues have been exhausted. This is a pernicious practice that we have consistently rejected. This case cannot turn on a belatedly raised new issue and theory.
We see nothing in Philreca that supports the petitioners" submission that NEA's regulatory powers are based on the existence of a creditor-debtor relationship between NEA and the electric cooperaiive. Philreca concerned itself with the constitutionality of Sections 193 and 234 of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, specifically, on provisions relating [0 the withdrawal of tax exemption privileges and exemptions from real property tax. Philreca assailed these provisions for allegedly being discriminatory against them in violation of the equal protection clause and for impairing the obligation of contracts between the Philippine Government and the United Staled Government. The Court never touched on the regulatory powers of NEA in resolving the questions of constitutionality involved in that case. Thus, the petitioners' reliance on Philreca is misplaced.
Factual questions regarding ZAMECO ll's apparent CDA registration are not for us to determine at our level as we are not triers of fact. These are best resolved by the Court of Appeals utilizing its powers to require parties to submit additional documents, as it may find necessary, or to receive evidence, to promote the ends of justice.
WHEREFORE, we accordingly DENY the petitioners partial motion for reconsideration.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales, Acting Chairperson, Honorable Antonio T. Carpio (designated additional member per S.O. No. 671 in lieu of Quisumbing J. on official leave), Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Arturo D. Brion, and Teresita Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per Raffle dated 11 May 2009), Members, Special Second Division, this 10th day of August, 2009.
G.R. No. 176935 - Zambales II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ZAMECO II) Board of Directors, el al., petitioners, v. Castillejos Consumers Association, Inc. (CASCONA) et al respondents.
G.R. No. 176936 - Zambales 11 Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ZAMECO II) Board of Directors, et al., petitioners, v. National Electrification Administration, et al., respondents.
In its Motion for Partial Reconsideration dated May 4, 201)9 addressing the Court's decision of March 13, 2009, the petitioners takes exception to the Court's pronouncement that NEA's regulatory power over electric cooperatives is not dependent on the existence of a creditor-debtor relationship between NEA and the electric cooperative. They posit thai on the basis of the principle of ejusdem generis and the Philreca [1] ruling, regulatory powers under Section 5 of P.D. No. 269, as amended by P.D. No. 1645, are based on die existence o( a creditor-debtor relationship between NEA and the electric cooperative.
The petitioners also argue that a remand of the case for factual determination of the validity of ZAMECO II.'s CDA .registration is not necessary since Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6938[2] (under which ZAMECO II was registered) and Article 17 of Republic Act No. 9520[3] provide that a certificate of registration issued by the CDA is conclusive evidence that die cooperative is duly registered unless proof exists that the registration has been cancelled.
We find no merit in these contentions.
The petitioners invoked ihe principle of ejusdem generis for ihe first time in their motion for reconsideration. We cannot consider new issues so presented, i.e., raised at this very late stage in the proceedings: consideration of these issues at this point would violate the basic principles of fair play, justice and due process.[4] Procedurally, invocation of the issue is nothing but a desperation move through a shift to a new theory, to raise a new matter alter the original theories and issues have been exhausted. This is a pernicious practice that we have consistently rejected. This case cannot turn on a belatedly raised new issue and theory.
We see nothing in Philreca that supports the petitioners" submission that NEA's regulatory powers are based on the existence of a creditor-debtor relationship between NEA and the electric cooperaiive. Philreca concerned itself with the constitutionality of Sections 193 and 234 of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, specifically, on provisions relating [0 the withdrawal of tax exemption privileges and exemptions from real property tax. Philreca assailed these provisions for allegedly being discriminatory against them in violation of the equal protection clause and for impairing the obligation of contracts between the Philippine Government and the United Staled Government. The Court never touched on the regulatory powers of NEA in resolving the questions of constitutionality involved in that case. Thus, the petitioners' reliance on Philreca is misplaced.
Factual questions regarding ZAMECO ll's apparent CDA registration are not for us to determine at our level as we are not triers of fact. These are best resolved by the Court of Appeals utilizing its powers to require parties to submit additional documents, as it may find necessary, or to receive evidence, to promote the ends of justice.
WHEREFORE, we accordingly DENY the petitioners partial motion for reconsideration.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales, Acting Chairperson, Honorable Antonio T. Carpio (designated additional member per S.O. No. 671 in lieu of Quisumbing J. on official leave), Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Arturo D. Brion, and Teresita Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per Raffle dated 11 May 2009), Members, Special Second Division, this 10th day of August, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Association, Inc. (PHILRECA) v. The Secretary Department of Interior and Local Government, G.R. No. 143076, June 10, 2003, 403 SCRA 558.
[2] Otherwise known as "Cooperative Code of the Philippines", which was enacted on March 10, 1990
[3] Otherwise known as the "Philippine Coopeartive Code of 2008," which took effect on March 22, 2009
[4] See Cruz v. Fernando. G.R. No. 145470, December 9, 2005, 477 SCRA 173, 182: Department of Agrarian Reform v. Franco. G.R. no. 147479. September 26, 2005, 471 SCRA 74, 92-93: Gualberto v. Go, G.R. No. 139843, July 21, 2005, 463 SCRA 671, 678: Philippine Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 127469, January 15, 2004, 419 SCRA 487, 503-04.
