29. NEA vs.

Gonzaga
G.R No. 158761, December 4, 2007

Topic: Administrative Law; Powers of Administrative Agencies; Quasi – Legislative; Administrative

Procedure in Rule-Making

Summary: Respondent, disqualified from running for a membership in the Board of ZAMSURECO,
filed a petition for prohibition and damages with RTC. The RTC said the petition was dismissible for
failure to exhaust all remedies as required by the ECEC. Respondent contested saying that the ECEC is
null and void since it had not been published. Issue: Whether ECEC should be null and void. Held: YES.
NEA failed to comply with Sec. 2 of the New Civil Code.

Doctrines:
 Where the issue centers on the validity of National Electrification Administration’s (NEA’s) rules
in light of the publication requirement of the Administrative Code and New Civil Code, the same
is cognizable by regular courts.
 Article 2 of the New Civil Code provides that laws shall take effect after fifteen (15) days
following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided.
 Since the Electric Cooperative Election Code (ECEC) applies to all electric cooperatives in the
country, and it is not a mere internal memorandum, interpretative regulation, or instruction to
subordinates, then it should comply with the requirements of the Civil Code and the
Administrative Code of 1987 relative to the publication requirement.

Facts: On November 13. 2000, the respondent filed his Certificate of Candidacv 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. 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. On 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.

RTC admitted the second petition of the respondent and summoned NEA to comment if the ECEC was
published in any newspaper in general circulation .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.

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. Regarding the petitioner's claim of 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.

On appeal, the CA denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration and sad that NEA was not exercising
its quasi-judicial powers but it's rule making authority.

Issue 1:
Whether or not the rule-making authority of NEA under the jurisdiction of the RTC? YES.

Ruling 1:. Where the issue centers on the validity of National Electrification Administration’s (NEA’s)
rules in light of the publication requirement of the Administrative Code and New Civil Code, the same is
cognizable by regular courts.

It is obvious that Sec. 59 of PD 269 refers to „order, ruling or decision‰ of NEA. What is being
challenged in this case is the decision of the screening committee of ZAMSURECO to disqualify
respondent. Likewise assailed is the validity of the ECEC, particularly, whether the requirement of
publication was complied with. The ECEC was issued by NEA pursuant to its rule-making authority, not
its quasi-judicial function. Hence, the issue regarding the controversy over respondent’s disqualification
and the question on the ECEC’s validity are within the inherent jurisdiction of regular courts to review.
Petitioner’s reliance on NEA is misplaced. The subject in that case was the electricity rates charged by a
cooperative, a matter which is clearly within NEA’s jurisdiction. The issue in the present petition,
however, centers on the validity of NEA’s rules in light of the publication requirements of the
Administrative Code and New Civil Code. The present issue is cognizable by regular courts.

Issue 2: Whether or not the nullification of the ECEC valid. YES.

Ruling 2: Effectivity of Laws; Article 2 of the New Civil Code provides that laws shall take effect after
fifteen (15) days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of
general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided.

The Court found no error in the appellate and trial courts nullification of the ECEC. The CA correctly
observed that while ZAMSURECO complied with the requirements of filing the code with the University
of the Philippines Law Center, it offered no proof of publication in the Official Gazette nor in a
newspaper of general circulation. Without compliance with the requirement of publication, the rules and
regulations contained in the ECEC cannot be enforced and implemented. Article 2 of the New Civil Code
provides that laws shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of their publication in
the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise
provided.

The ECEC applies to all electric cooperatives in the country. It is not a mere internal memorandum,
interpretative regulation, or instruction to subordinates. Thus, the ECEC should comply with the
requirements of the Civil Code and the Administrative Code of 1987. In previous cases involving the
election of directors for electric cooperatives, the validity of the ECEC was not put in issue. The ECEC
then enjoyed the presumption of validity. In this case, however, respondent directly questioned the
validity of the ECEC in his second amended petition. The trial court thus required petitioner to show
proof of publication of the ECEC. Petitioner could have easily provided such proof had the ECEC
actually been published in the Official Gazette or newspaper of general circulation in the country. This
simple proof could have immediately laid this case to rest. Petitioner’s failure to do so only implies that
the ECEC was not published accordingly, a fact supported by the certification from the National Printing
Office.