Case Digest (G.R. No. 232581)
Facts:
National Electrification Administration, represented by its Administrator, Edgardo R. Masongsong, Petitioner, v. Oscar C. Borja and Venancio B. Regulado, Respondents, G.R. No. 232581, November 13, 2024, Supreme Court Third Division, Dimaampao, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner National Electrification Administration (NEA) issued Memorandum No. 2012-016 titled “Guidelines in the Candidacy of EC Officials and Employees in the 2013 National and Local Elections” on July 6, 2012. Section 2 of the Memorandum provided that electric cooperative (EC) officials who filed their Certificates of Candidacy (COCs) would be “considered automatically resigned” effective on dates marking the beginning of the 2013 campaign period (February 12, 2013 for senators and party-list; March 29, 2013 for members of the House and local elective officials).
Respondents Oscar C. Borja and Venancio B. Regulado were incumbent members of the Board of Directors of Camarines Sur Electric Cooperative II (CASURECO II); Borja’s term ran until October 2014, Regulado’s until December 2013. Borja filed his COC for mayor of Bombom, Camarines Sur, and Regulado ran for municipal councilor in Canaman for the May 2013 elections. Aggrieved by the Memorandum, they filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Naga City, Special Civil Action No. 2013-0031, seeking declaratory relief and injunctive relief (temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction) to declare Section 2 unconstitutional and enjoin its application on the ground that it contravened election laws and would deprive their member-consumers of representation.
NEA answered, asserting among other defenses that the petition was premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, that the deemed-resignation rule of the Omnibus Election Code applies only to public officials and GOCCs (not to elected members of private cooperatives), and that respondents failed to show a right in esse or grave and irreparable injury. The RTC, in an Order dated September 23, 2013 (Presiding Judge Bernhard B. Beltran), granted a preliminary injunction but only as to Borja (Regulado had already assumed elective office). The RTC later, by Decision dated February 25, 2014 (Judge Filemon B. Montenegro), struck down Section 2 as unconstitutional and beyond NEA’s authority, reasoning that the Memorandum expanded provisions already declared void in Quinto v. COMELEC.
NEA appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. CV No. 102421. The CA initially regarded the case as moot and academic with respect to the parties because the 2013 elections had concluded and the contested memorandum’s effect was limited to that election period, but the CA nonetheless proceeded to resolve the merits under the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception. The CA held that electric cooperatives are private, non-stock, non-profit membership corporations under Presidential Decree No. 269 and that Section 21 (of PD 269) did not authorize NEA to declare officers automatically resigned upon filing a COC; thus Section 2 effectively amended PD 269 and was void. The CA’s September 5, 2016 Decision (Special Tenth Division, penned by Associate Justice Galapate‑Laguilles) was affirmed in a June 9, 2017 Resolution denying reconsideration.
NEA filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court, challenging (1) the CA’s mootness ruling, (2) the CA’s conclusion that Secti...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the case moot and academic, or does the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception permit judicial review?
- Does Section 2 of Memorandum No. 2012-016 contravene the NEA charter (Presidential Decree No. 269) and related election law such that NEA exceeded its administrative authority?
- Should the petition before the RTC have been dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative re...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)