G.R. No. 175736 - Remo vs. Bueno

Petitioners: Jose Rizal L. Remo, Reynaldo G. Panaligan, Tita L. Matulin, Isagani Casalme, Cipriano P. Roxas, Cesario S. Gutierrez, Celso A. Landicho, and Eduardo L. Tagle — members of the Board of Directors of Batangas II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BATELEC II).
Respondents: Edita S. Bueno (Administrator, National Electrification Administration — NEA), members of NEA Board of Administrators, NEA personnel (including Project Supervisor Evangelito Estaca), officers of BATELEC II, and member-consumers of BATELEC II; also named in related pleadings: Dept. of Energy Secretary Raphael Lotilla, other NEA board members, and caretaker directors elected under NEA orders.

On May 12, 2005, BATELEC II member-consumers filed an administrative complaint (NEA Adm. Case No. 01-05-05) alleging gross mismanagement and corruption by the petitioners concerning (inter alia) a P75M computerization contract awarded without proper bidding and overpriced purchases of boom trucks.
After proceedings and required document submissions, on October 5, 2006 the NEA Board of Administrators found substantial evidence and ordered: removal and perpetual disqualification of eight incumbent directors (including petitioners), disqualification of four former directors, and recommended filing of criminal/civil actions; NEA Administrator Bueno issued an execution order (October 9, 2006) directing seven remaining directors to reorganize and elect new officers and that the vacancies not be counted for quorum.

Petitioners filed multiple petitions for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA) contesting various NEA orders and the execution of the October 5, 2006 NEA decision; one CA division issued a 60-day TRO on October 16, 2006; CA ultimately dismissed CA-G.R. SP No. 96486 (special civil action) and lifted the TRO, finding no grave abuse of discretion by Administrator Bueno and holding NEA decisions immediately executory under NEA Rules (Section 15).
Petitioners sought relief from the Supreme Court: (a) G.R. No. 175736 — petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 (challenging CA decision and NEA execution order) with prayers for status quo/training injunction; (b) G.R. No. 175898 — verified petition for indirect contempt for alleged disregard of the Supreme Court’s Status Quo Ante Order (issued December 29, 2006).

Petitioners attempted to register BATELEC II with the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) (Nov. 17, 2006); CDA later set aside registration pending investigation.
Petitioners alleged that, despite the Supreme Court’s Status Quo Ante Order (Dec. 29, 2006), they were barred from re-entering BATELEC II premises on Jan. 2, 2007; they filed a petition for indirect contempt (G.R. No. 175898).
NEA and other respondents contended (inter alia) that: (a) NEA Rules (Section 15) validly make NEA decisions immediately executory; (b) filing of certiorari petitions to CA and other procedural choices by petitioners (multiple petitions) raised forum-shopping and premature/incorrect modes of appeal issues; (c) NEA’s supervisory powers justified appointment of project supervisor and caretaker directors to protect members’ interests.

Whether Section 15 of the NEA’s New Administrative Rules (declaring NEA decisions immediately executory) is inconsistent with or invalid under Presidential Decree No. 269 (PD 269) — particularly Sections 58 and 59 (reconsideration and judicial review) and Section 60 (no stay by certiorari).
Whether the NEA decision of October 5, 2006 could be executed during the pendency of a duly filed motion for reconsideration, or whether such motion stays execution under applicable rules.

Whether NEA Administrator Edita Bueno committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the October 9, 2006 execution order and directing reorganization of BATELEC II’s board and exclusion of removed directors from quorum count.
Whether, after the NEA removals, the remaining seven directors constituted a quorum under PD 269 Section 24(d).
Whether petitioners’ actions and respondents’ conduct warranted relief for indirect contempt for alleged violation of the Supreme Court’s Status Quo Ante Order.
Procedural questions: proper remedy and mode of judicial review (Rule 43 appeal vs. Rule 65 certiorari), and allegations of forum-shopping by petitioners.