G.R. No. L-70203 December 18, 1987
Salvio B. Fortuno and Camarines Sur II Electric Cooperative (CASURECO II), petitioners, vs. Honorable Mericia B. Palma, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch XXI, Regional Trial Court, Fifth Judicial Region, and Joel David S. Abante, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Salvio B. Fortuno and respondent Joel David S. Abante were candidates for director of CASURECO II. Prior to the election, Abante filed a petition with the National Electrification Administration (NEA) and the District Election Committee (DEC) to disqualify Fortuno for alleged non-residency. The DEC, after hearing, denied the petition and proclaimed Fortuno the winner. Abante did not appeal the DEC’s decision to the NEA. Instead, he filed a petition for quo warranto with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City, challenging Fortuno’s qualification. The RTC asserted jurisdiction over the case, prompting Fortuno and CASURECO II to file the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over a quo warranto proceeding questioning the qualification of an elected director of an electric cooperative, notwithstanding the regulatory power of the National Electrification Administration and the electric cooperative’s internal election code.

RULING

Yes, the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the RTC’s authority. Petitioners argued that jurisdiction was vested exclusively in the NEA and its created bodies, citing P.D. No. 269 and the NEA Election Code which granted the DEC “sole jurisdiction” over election protests, with appeals to the NEA. The Court, however, ruled that this administrative remedy is not exclusive and does not oust the regular courts of their jurisdiction over quo warranto. Quo warranto is a special civil action defined and governed by the Rules of Court, specifically Rule 66, which confers jurisdiction on the RTC. The statutory grant of supervisory power to the NEA over electric cooperatives does not contain an express provision stripping the courts of this jurisdiction. While the internal remedy of appeal to the NEA was available, Abante’s failure to avail of it did not preclude him from resorting to a judicial quo warranto action, particularly where, as alleged, the DEC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court distinguished cases involving purely internal affairs of unincorporated associations, noting that CASURECO II is a corporation, and its actions are subject to judicial review for arbitrariness or capriciousness.