Case Digest (G.R. No. 173840)
Facts:
Samar II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Samelco II) v. Ananias D. Seludo, Jr., G.R. No. 173840, April 25, 2012, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are Samar II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (SAMELCO II) and several members of its Board of Directors; respondent is Ananias D. Seludo, Jr., a director elected in 2002 whose term expired in May 2005. SAMELCO II was organized under P.D. No. 269, as amended by P.D. No. 1645.
On January 22, 2005 the SAMELCO II Board adopted Resolution No. 5 (Series of 2005) which (a) disallowed respondent from attending succeeding Board meetings effective February 2005 until the end of his term and (b) disqualified him for one term from running for director in upcoming district elections. Believing his rights as a director were curtailed, respondent filed an Urgent Petition for Prohibition against SAMELCO II and the individual directors in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calbiga, Samar (Special Civil Case No. C-2005-1085), seeking nullification of the resolution and a TRO or preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement.
The RTC issued a temporary restraining order (extended once), and in an Order dated May 6, 2005 sustained its jurisdiction over the petition for prohibition and restrained petitioners from enforcing Resolution No. 5. The RTC denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on September 15, 2005. Petitioners sought relief in the Court of Appeals (CA) via a special civil action for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC; the CA, in a Decision dated January 26, 2006, dismissed the petition for certiorari and affirmed the RTC Orders. The CA denied reconsideration in its July 12, 2006 Resolution.
Petitioners filed the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, assigning errors centered on: (1) the CA’s alleged narrow application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; (2) the CA’s supposed misreading of the NEA’s statutory powers under P.D. No. 269 and P.D. No. 1645 as not including authority to determine the validity ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the doctrine of primary jurisdiction apply here, i.e., which forum — the RTC or the National Electrification Administration (NEA) — has primary jurisdiction to determine the validity of SAMELCO II’s Board Resolution No. 5 (Series of 2005)?
- Do P.D. No. 269, as amended by P.D. No. 1645 (Sections 5 and 7), grant the NEA authority to determine the validity of cooperative board resolutions and to exercise remedial powers including suspension, removal or replacement of board members?
- Was respondent precluded from filing a petition for prohibition in the RTC because an adequate administrative remedy before the NEA existed (i.e., mus...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)