Case Digest (G.R. No. L-55151)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-55151)
Facts:
David Aguila, Edita Bueno, Evelito Elento, Resurrection Inting, Antonio Lim and Wilfredo Cabardo v. Hon. Melecio A. Genato and Dominador B. Borje, G.R. No. L-55151, March 17, 1981, Supreme Court First Division, Melencio‑Herrera, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Aguila and Bueno were respectively the Deputy Administrator and Director for Cooperative Development of the National Electrification Administration (NEA); Evelito Elento was Acting General Manager of Misamis Occidental Electric Cooperative, Inc., II (MOELCI II); Resurrection Inting, Antonio Lim and Wilfredo Cabardo were members of MOELCI II’s Board. Private respondent Dominador B. Borje had been elected Director of MOELCI II for the North District to serve a three‑year term beginning March 25, 1979.
On 4 January 1980 Borje filed his certificate of candidacy for member of the Sangguniang Panglunsod of Ozamiz City for the 30 January 1980 elections. On 7 January 1980 the NEA, through Administrator Pedro G. Dumol, issued Memorandum No. 18 stating that officials and employees of electric cooperatives who run for public office, win and assume office, shall be considered resigned; the Memorandum was issued pursuant to the NEA’s supervisory powers as conferred by PD No. 1645 (amending PD No. 269). On 11 January 1980 the NEA Deputy Administrator telegrammed MOELCI II’s Acting GM that if Borje were elected to the Sangguniang Bayan he would be considered resigned. Borje’s request for reconsideration was denied on 7 February 1980.
Having won the election, Borje assumed his city office on 3 March 1980 and on the same day filed before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Misamis Occidental, Branch II, Special Civil Case No. 0511, a petition for prohibition, mandamus and construction of legal provisions with a prayer for preliminary injunction seeking a declaration that he was entitled to remain and serve as MOELCI II Director until March 1982. On 3 March 1980 the trial judge issued an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining petitioners from enforcing the NEA telegram and directing that Borje be allowed to remain as Director pending hearing.
Petitioners moved to dismiss and to dissolve the TRO, invoking PD No. 269, Sec. 21 (which disqualifies elective officers, except barrio captains and councilors, from being officers/directors of cooperatives), MOELCI II’s By‑laws (Art. IV, Sec. 3(c) disqualifying those who “hold an elective office in the government above the level of a Barangay Captain”), and PD No. 269, Sec. 24 (on by‑laws and succession). The trial judge briefly dissolved the TRO on 24 March 1980 but restored it on 25 March 1980. A vacation judge dissolved the TRO on 8 May 1980.
On 10 May 1980 MOELCI II’s Board adopted Resolution No. 121, S‑80 implementing NEA Memorandum No. 18 and declaring Borje’s directorship vacant. On 6 June 1980 the respondent judge set aside the vacation judge’s order and again revived the TRO, reasoning that as a “councilor” Borje fell within the exception in PD No. 269, Sec. 21.
Petitioners, through the Solicitor General, filed this petition for certiorari with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction on 29 September 1980, arguing that the CFI had no jurisdiction to issue the mandatory‑type restraining order and that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion. On 10 October 1980 the Supreme Court required respondents to answer and issued a restraining order enjoining enforcement of the CFI’s 6 June 1980 order and further proceedings below. Answers and pleadings were filed and, on 2 February 1981, the Court gave due course to the petition and submitted the case for decision.
Issues:
- Did the respondent judge commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the restraining orders (including the 6 June 1980 order) that directed petitioners to retain private respondent as Director of MOELCI II?
- Was private respondent Dominador B. Borje entitled to continue serving as Director of MOELCI II after his election and assumption to the Sangguniang Panglunsod, or did he become ineligible under the applicable law and by‑laws?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)