Grace Ann Copiling

JD1- Block B

Case Digest
G.R. No 158761- December 4, 2007
National Electrification Administration vs. Victoriano B. Gonzaga
Petitioner: NEA
Respondent: Gonzaga

Facts:

November 13, 2000- The respondent filed his Certificate of Candidacy for a membership in the Board of
Directors of Zamboanga del Sur II Electric Cooperative, Inc (ZAMSURECO). Per the Electric Cooperative
Election Code (ECEC) ,promulgated by NEA, a candidate whose spouse occupies an elective government
position higher than Barangay Captain is not allowed to run as director of the cooperative. The spouse of
the respondent was an incumbent member of Sangguniang Bayan of Diplaha, Zamboanga hence the
respondent was disqualified from running for the said position.

November 21, 2000- The respondent filed a petition for Prohibition and damages CC 4282-2K with the
Pagadian City RTC. The RTC said that petition was dismissible because the failure of the respondent to
exhaust all administrative remedies required by the ECEC guidelines.

November 24,2000- ZAMSURECO filed a motion to dismiss and answer but was denied by the RTC and
was ordered to refrain from conducting the election for directorship on December 2, 2000.

December 12,2000- Respondent filed a motion to withdraw the amended petition and claimed a second
petition that the ECEC was null and void because it had not been published.

December 20,2000- RTC admitted the second petition of the respondent and summoned NEA to
comment if the ECEC was published in any newspaper in general circulation

January 29,2001- NEA filed an extension of time to file an answer and filed a motion to dismiss NEA
questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC. Petitioner said that per PD 269 Sec 59, only the supreme court
has the power to review any order or ruling of NEA.

July 23,2001- RTC denied the petitioner’s motion and cited the lack of answer from the petitioner
whether the ECEC was published in a newspaper of general circulation. Under Sec 2 of the new civil
code, failure of this will make the ECEC null and void. With regard to then petitioner’s claim o the
validity of the jurisdiction of RTC, NEA erroneously relied on SEC 51 to 58 of PD 269.
The RTC favored the respondent and ordered ZAMSURECO to accept the COC of the respondent. RTC
also denied NEA’s motion for reconsideration.

June 10,2002- The Court of Appeals denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and sad that
NEA was not exercising its quasi-judicial powers but it’s rule making authority.

The Issues:

1) Is the rule-making authority of NEA under the jurisdiction of the RTC?

2) Is the nullification of the ECEC valid?

Ruling
Yes. The Supreme Court said that the issue in this case is the validity of the decision of the
screening of committee of ZAMSURECO to disqualify the respondent and the validity of the ECEC ,
whether or not it was published in a newspaper of general circulation. The ECEC was issued by NEA
through its rule-making authority and not its quasi-judicial function. Sec 59 of PD 269 refers to the
quasi-jusdicial function of NEA. Hence, the TC has jurisdiction over this case.
The Supreme Court also validates the decision to nullify the ECEC because NEA failed to comply
with Sec 2 of the new civil code that the law shall take effect after 15 days following the completion of
the publication in the official gazette or any newspaper in general circulation.
On March 6, 2003 the Supreme Court denied the petition of NEA and affirmed the decision of
the RTC and CA.

G.R. No 187587- June 5, 2013

Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigagsig, Inc vs. Military Shrine Services-Philippine Veterans Affairs
Office, Department of National Defense
Petitioner: Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigagsig, Inc
Respondent: Military Shrine Services-Philippine Veterans Affairs Office, Department of National
Defense

Facts

May 28,1967- President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation No 208 excluding an area of Fort
Bonifacio and reserved it for national shrine.

January 7, 1986- Pres. Marcos issued Proclamation No 2476 excluding the barangays of Lower Bicutan,
Upper Bicutan nad Signal Village from the reserved area for national shrine. At the bottom of the
proclamation, Pres Marcos includes a handwritten addendum “P.S.- This includes Western Bicutan”.

February 3, 1986- The proclamation was published in the Official Gazette without the handwritten
addendum of the president.

August 27,1999- Petitioners filed a petition to the Commission on Settlement of Land Problems
(COSLAP) to reclassify the area they occupy from public land to alienable land/private land.

September 1,2006- COSLAP issued a resolution declaring the questionable land from public land to
alienable and disposable land. COSLAP said that the handwritten addendum was an integral part of the
proclamation.

January 24, 2007- The petitioner file a motion for reconsideration to the COSLAP but was denied.

The petitioner a petition with the court of appeals to reverse COSLAP resolutions dated September 6,
2006 and January 24, 2007.

April 29,2009- Court Appeals granted that the Resolutions dated September 6, 2006 and January 24,
2007 be reversed.
Issues: Is the questionable land declared as not alienable and not disposable because the written
addendum from the president was not included in the publication?

Ruling:

Yes. The handwritten addendum has no legal force as it was not included in the publication. Per Sec 2 of
the new civil code, the requirement of publication is indispensable in the effectively of law otherwise
stated by the law itself. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court
of Appeals.