GR 158761; (December, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 158761; December 4, 2007
NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION, petitioner, vs. VICTORIANO B. GONZAGA, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Victoriano B. Gonzaga filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the Board of Directors of ZAMSURECO II Electric Cooperative. The screening committee, applying the NEA-promulgated Electric Cooperative Election Code (ECEC), disqualified him because his spouse was an incumbent municipal councilor. ZAMSURECO’s own by-laws did not contain this disqualification. Gonzaga filed a Petition for Prohibition and Damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing the ECEC provision was invalid. The RTC issued a temporary restraining order against the election.
The RTC denied NEA’s Motion to Dismiss, which was based on lack of jurisdiction and failure to exhaust administrative remedies under PD 269. The trial court ruled the ECEC was null and void for lack of publication and that the issue involved NEA’s quasi-legislative, not quasi-judicial, function. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that courts have jurisdiction to review the legality of the ECEC. NEA elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the regular courts have jurisdiction over a case challenging the validity of the ECEC promulgated by NEA, or whether such challenge falls under the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in Section 59 of PD 269.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. The Court held that Section 59 of PD 269 applies only to review of orders, rulings, or decisions made by NEA in the exercise of its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory functions. The provision does not apply to challenges against NEA’s quasi-legislative or rule-making authority. The ECEC is a set of rules and guidelines issued by NEA in its rule-making capacity.
Consequently, a judicial question on the validity or constitutionality of such a code, including whether it was properly published, is within the jurisdiction of regular courts. The proper recourse for Gonzaga, who sought to invalidate the code and compel the cooperative to accept his candidacy, was indeed a petition for prohibition and mandamus filed with the RTC. The Court found no error in the CA’s decision that upheld the RTC’s jurisdiction to nullify the unpublished ECEC and rule on Gonzaga’s eligibility.