G.R. No. 232581 - National Electrification Administration vs. Oscar C. Borja and Vecio B. Regulado

Petitioner: National Electrification Administration (NEA), represented by its Administrator Edgardo R. Masongsong.
Respondents: Oscar C. Borja and Venancio B. Regulado, incumbent members of the Board of Directors of the Camarines Sur Electric Cooperative II (CASURECO II).

NEA issued Memorandum No. 2012-016 entitled "Guidelines in the Candidacy of EC Officials and Employees in the 2013 National and Local Elections."
Section 2 of the memorandum provided that electric cooperative (EC) officials who filed their Certificates of Candidacy for public office in the 2013 elections shall be considered automatically resigned from their positions effective upon the start of the campaign period.
Borja filed his certificate of candidacy for mayor of Bombom, Camarines Sur, and Regulado filed for municipal councilor of Canaman during their terms as board members.

Respondents filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City to declare Section 2 of the memorandum unconstitutional, arguing it contravened election laws and the will of the electorate.
Borja and Regulado claimed that their constituents would suffer due to their forced resignation.
NEA argued the petition was premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the memorandum applied only to public officials but not elected members of private entities like CASURECO II.
The RTC issued a preliminary injunction in favor of Borja but not Regulado, noting Regulado had already assumed local office.
The RTC struck down Section 2 of the memorandum for being sourced from laws already declared void in Quinto v. COMELEC, and for expanding the scope beyond legal provisions.

The CA dismissed the case as moot and academic due to expiration of involved officials' terms and limited effectivity period of the memorandum.
However, the CA ruled on the constitutionality issue, holding that Section 2 of the memorandum amended the NEA charter (Presidential Decree No. 269) without authority and was therefore void.
NEA’s motion for partial reconsideration was denied.

NEA filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari contesting the CA decision.
The issues raised include mootness, alleged violation of the NEA’s charter by Section 2 of the memorandum, and procedural grounds relating to exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Whether the controversy is now moot and academic.
Whether Section 2 of NEA Memorandum No. 2012-016 contravenes the NEA Charter under Presidential Decree No. 269.
Whether the petition before the RTC should have been dismissed on procedural grounds due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies.