G.R. No. 232581 , November 13, 2024
National Electrification Administration, represented by its Administrator, Edgardo R. Masongsong, Petitioner, vs. Oscar C. Borja and Venancio B. Regulado, Respondents.

FACTS

Prior to the case, respondents Oscar C. Borja and Venancio B. Regulado were incumbent members of the Board of Directors of the Camarines Sur Electric Cooperative II (CASURECO II). Borja filed his certificate of candidacy for mayor, and Regulado ran for municipal councilor in the May 2013 elections. They filed a Petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City, seeking to declare Section 2 of Memorandum No. 2012-016 (the “Guidelines in the Candidacy of EC Officials and Employees in the 2013 National and Local Elections”) issued by petitioner National Electrification Administration (NEA) as unconstitutional. The challenged provision deemed electric cooperative officials who file certificates of candidacy as automatically resigned, effective at the start of the campaign period. The RTC struck down Section 2 of the Memorandum, finding it sourced from election laws already declared void in Quinto v. COMELEC. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the case for being moot and academic, as the 2013 elections had concluded and the respondents’ terms with CASURECO II had expired. However, the CA still ruled on the constitutionality, holding that Section 2 of the Memorandum contravened NEA’s charter, Presidential Decree No. 269, which does not provide for such automatic resignation. NEA filed the present Petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CA erred in decreeing the case is already moot and academic.
2. Whether the CA erred in decreeing that Section 2 of Memorandum No. 2012-016 contravenes the NEA’s charter.
3. Whether the CA erred in failing to rule that the petition before the RTC should have been dismissed on procedural grounds.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the Petition, affirming the CA’s rulings.
1. On Mootness: The Court affirmed the case was rendered moot and academic. Memorandum No. 2012-016 was effective only for the 2013 elections, which had long concluded, and the respondents were no longer members of the CASURECO II Board, making a ruling on the merits of no practical value. However, the Court applied the exception for issues “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” The challenged action’s duration was too short for full litigation prior to its expiration, and there was a reasonable expectation that the same issue would affect electric cooperative board members in future elections, given NEA’s insistence on its authority.
2. On the Validity of the Memorandum: The Court ruled that Section 2 of Memorandum No. 2012-016 is invalid. An administrative agency like NEA cannot amend an act of Congress. The Omnibus Election Code’s provision on automatic resignation upon filing a certificate of candidacy applies only to persons holding “public appointive office or position… in government-owned or controlled corporations.” Electric cooperatives, as defined under Section 15 of Presidential Decree No. 269 (NEA’s charter), are “non-stock, non-profit membership corporations” engaged in public service but are private entities, not government agencies or instrumentalities. Therefore, elected members of an electric cooperative’s board are not covered by the automatic resignation rule under election laws. By imposing such a rule, NEA’s Memorandum effectively amended its charter, which only makes “elective officers of the government, except barrio captains and councilors” ineligible to become cooperative officers/directors, and was properly struck down.
3. On Procedural Grounds: The Court found no reversible error in the CA’s failure to dismiss the case on procedural grounds (specifically, alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies). The Court resolved to dispense with the filing of the respondents’ comment due to their failure to file it within a considerable period.