Title
Cooperative Development Authority vs. Dolefil Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 137489
Decision Date
May 29, 2002
CDA lacked quasi-judicial authority to issue freeze orders or manage DARBCI's internal disputes; Supreme Court upheld CA's ruling, invalidating CDA's actions but preserving due process in election.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 137489)

Facts:

  • Parties and Subject Matter
    • Petitioner Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) – a government agency created under Republic Act No. 6939 to promote cooperatives.
    • Respondents Dolefil Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative, Inc. (DARBCI) and its ousted officers – alleged mismanagement of 8,860 hectares of land in Polomolok, South Cotabato.
  • CDA Administrative Proceedings (CDA-CO Case No. 97-011)
    • Late 1997 – CDA received complaints of fund misappropriation against DARBCI officers; Executive Director Verzosa ordered answers (Dec. 8, 1997).
    • CDA Administrator Zingapan froze DARBCI funds and formed a management committee (Dec. 15, 1997).
    • CDA Chairman Medina placed private respondents under preventive suspension (Feb. 24, 1998); management committee took over on March 10, 1998.
    • CDA Administrator Lozada scheduled a special general assembly and elections for June 14, 1998 (May 26, 1998).
  • Parallel Judicial Actions
    • SP Civil Case No. 25 (RTC Polomolok) – private respondents filed certiorari with prayer for injunction (Dec. 18, 1997), secured TRO restoring status quo (Mar. 27 & 31, 1998).
    • CA-G.R. SP No. 47318 (CA 12th Div.) – CDA sought certiorari to lift RTC TRO; CA issued TRO in favor of CDA and held SP Civil Case No. 25 in abeyance (Apr. 21, 1998).
    • CA-G.R. SP No. 47933 (CA 13th Div.) – private respondents filed prohibition to stop June 14 assembly; CA issued TRO (June 10, 1998).
    • SP Civil Case No. 28 (RTC Polomolok) – Investa Land Corp. sought nullification of CDA orders and secured TRO (June 11, 1998).
    • July 12, 1998 – majority of DARBCI members convened self-initiated assembly, elected new board; private respondents moved for contempt and nullification before CA.
  • Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution
    • Decision (Sept. 9, 1998) – CA 13th Div. nullified CDA orders and resolutions in CDA-CO No. 97-011, ordered CDA to reinstate private respondents and cease proceedings.
    • Resolution (Feb. 9, 1999) – denied CDA’s motion for reconsideration; declared July 12, 1998 election null and void ab initio; directed explanations for contempt.
  • Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court
    • CDA raised assignments of error: lack of jurisdictional basis in CA decision, failure to apply forum-shopping rule, reliance on conjecture.
    • CDA asserted quasi-judicial powers under R.A. No. 6939 Sections 3 and 8, DOJ Opinion No. 10 (1995), and OP Case No. 51111.
    • Private respondents denied forum-shopping, challenged CDA representation for lack of OSG imprimatur.

Issues:

  • Does the CDA possess quasi-judicial authority to adjudicate intra-cooperative disputes, including election controversies?
  • Did the Court of Appeals err in nullifying CDA orders and resolutions beyond judicial review?
  • Were private respondents guilty of forum-shopping by filing multiple actions seeking similar relief?
  • Was the election held on July 12, 1998 properly nullified by the Court of Appeals without due process?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.