G.R. No. 97903 August 24, 1998
ELMER F. ESPINA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION, ROMMEL L. MANIKAN, LEYTE IV ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF LEYTE IV ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., and MIGUEL COTIAMCO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Elmer Espina and private respondent Miguel Cotiamco were candidates for director of Leyte IV Electric Cooperative (LEYECO IV), representing the Baybay South District. On May 23, 1990, Espina filed a petition to disqualify Cotiamco with the LEYECO IV District Election Committee (DECOM) on the ground that Cotiamco was not a bona fide member of the cooperative. The DECOM endorsed the petition to the National Electrification Administration (NEA). An election was held on May 27, 1990, where Cotiamco garnered 636 votes against Espina’s 599 votes, and Cotiamco was proclaimed winner and sworn in on June 6, 1990. The NEA remanded the disqualification petition to the DECOM, which, after hearing, rendered a decision on July 28, 1990, disqualifying Cotiamco. Consequently, Espina took his oath and assumed office. Cotiamco appealed to the NEA, which reversed the DECOM on October 1, 1990, declaring Cotiamco a bona fide member and duly elected director. Espina filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, which upheld the NEA’s order in a decision dated March 15, 1991. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals and the NEA erred in holding that Miguel Cotiamco is a member of the cooperative and eligible to be a candidate for the board of directors.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the NEA’s letter-order was issued in accordance with law and not in violation of petitioner’s right to due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for being moot and academic, as the term of office of director had expired on June 26, 1993. However, it addressed the substantive issues. The Court held that the appellate court erred in upholding the NEA’s decision, which was rendered with grave abuse of discretion. The NEA’s finding that Cotiamco was a bona fide member, based on facts such as his use of membership number 166 and entries in consumer indexes and voter masterlists, and on the principle of estoppel, contravened both P.D. No. 269 (the NEA Charter) and the LEYECO IV by-laws. Under P.D. No. 269, Section 21, and the by-laws, membership requires a written application, agreement to purchase electric energy, compliance with bylaws, payment of a membership fee, and acceptance by the board, evidenced by a membership certificate. Cotiamco did not meet these requirements; the membership certificate number 166 belonged to his sister-in-law, Carmen Cotiamco, and certifications from the LEYECO IV Manager of Member Services confirmed he was not a registered member and that no separate membership existed for him. Joint membership under the by-laws is allowed only for husband and wife, not for other relatives. The principle of estoppel cannot be invoked to disregard legal provisions, specifically P.D. No. 269, Section 24, which requires membership in the cooperative as a condition for being a director. Regarding due process, the Court found petitioner’s claim untenable, as he had filed an opposition to Cotiamco’s motion in the NEA, thus receiving notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Court also noted that under the LEYECO IV Election Code, votes for a disqualified candidate are considered stray, which could have led to declaring petitioner the winner, but the case was rendered moot by the expiration of the term.