the Board, to attend meetings of the Board and disqualified him for running in
the re-election.
Full Case Title: Samar II Electric Cooperative Inc (SAMELCO II) v Seludo Jr
Doctrine: One of the requisites for a writ of prohibition to issue is that there
is no plain, speedy, and adequate, remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Petitioner must first exhaust all administrative remedies in order for
prohibition to lie.
Recit - Ready Summary: The individual petitioners in this case are the
Board Members of SAMLECO II, a cooperative that provides electric service
to municipalities within Samar. The petitioners issued a resolution that
disallowed the respondent, Seludo, who was also a member of the Board, to
attend meetings of the Board and disqualified him for running in the re-
election. Respondent filed an Urgent Petition for Prohibition against
petitioner in the RTC. RTC granted this. Petitioners raised the defense of lack
of jurisdiction of the RTC because it was NEA who had primary jurisdiction.
RTC sustained its jurisdiction. CA denied petitioner’s certiorari, hence this
case. (Read issue) The Court ruled in the affirmative. PD 1645 provides that
in the exercise of its power of supervision and control over electric
cooperatives, the NEA is empowered to issue orders, rules and regulations
and motu proprio or upon petition of third parties, to conduct
investigations, referenda and other similar actions in all matters affecting
said electric cooperatives. RTC has jurisdiction, however, NEA has primary
jurisdiction pursuant to its power of supervision and control. Also,the
exceptions from using the admin remedies were not established by
respondent. Respondent's failure to file a complaint before the NEA
prevents him from filing a petition for prohibition before the RTC since he
failed to exhaust all administrative remedies. Petition is granted.
Facts: The individual petitioners in this case are the Board Members of
SAMLECO II, a cooperative that provided electric service to municipalities
within Samar. SAMELCO was organized under PD 269. The petitioners issued a
resolution that disallowed the respondent, Seludo, who was also a member of
Respondent filed an Urgent Petition for Prohibition against petitioner in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Calbiga, Samar. Respondent prayed for the
nullification of Resolution No. 5, contending that it was issued without any
legal and factual bases. He likewise prayed for a temporary restraining order
(TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the petitioners from
enforcing resolution. RTC granted private respondent's prayer and issued a
TRO.
Petitioners raised the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over the
subject matter of the case. They said that, primary jurisdiction is vested on the
National Electrification Administration (NEA) since the matter involved was an
electric cooperative. However, RTC judge sustained the jurisdiction of the
court.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the
RTC. Petitioners elevated case to CA via a special civil action for certiorari,
imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC.
CA denied and said that Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction cannot be applied
since the issue does not require the technical expertise of the NEA.
Petitioners filed for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the ROC of the CA
decision. Petitioners aver that the Doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies to
issues that do not require technical expertise, that CA was wrong when it ruled
that there is nothing in the law that grants NEA the power to ascertain the
validity of resolution unseating a member, and that respondent cannot file
petition because he has adequate remedy in the ordinary course of business.
Issue: W/N NEA has Primary Jurisdiction over the case (YES)
Ratio/Legal Basis:
The Court ruled in the affirmative. P.D. No. 1645, which amended PD 269,
provides that in the exercise of its power of supervision and control over
electric cooperatives, the NEA is empowered to issue orders, rules and
regulations and motu proprio or upon petition of third parties, to conduct
investigations, referenda and other similar actions in all matters affecting
said electric cooperatives.
P.D. No. 1645 broaden the powers of the NEA. In administrative law,
supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see
that subordinate officers perform their duties. Control, on the other hand,
means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a
subordinate officer had done. Administrative Code of 1987 provides, that
Supervision and control shall  include the authority to restrain the
commission of acts; review, approve, reverse or modify acts and decisions of
subordinate officials or units.
It is true that the RTC has jurisdiction over the petition for prohibition filed by
respondent. However, the basic issue is who between the RTC and the NEA
has primary jurisdiction over the question of the validity of the Board
Resolution issued by SAMELCO II. Pursuant to its power of supervision and
control, the NEA has primary jurisdiction. The removal of respondent as Board
member is matter which affects the said electric cooperative and, thus, comes
within the powers of the NEA as expressed P.D. No. 1645.
Primary jurisdiction applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts
and the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, has been
placed within the special competence of an administrative agency. Corollary to
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is the principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies.  Before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of
the courts (judicial review), it is a pre-condition that he avail himself of all
administrative processes afforded him. The availment of administrative
remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of
controversies.
(b) challenged administrative act is illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction;
(c) unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the
complainant;
(d) amount involved is relatively so small;
(e) question is purely legal
(f) judicial intervention is urgent;
(g) application may cause great and irreparable damage;
(h) controverted acts violate due process;
(i) issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered
moot;
(j) where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; (k) strong
public interest is involved; and
(l) in quo warranto proceedings.
Respondent, failed to show that any of the exceptions are present in this case.
The issue of W/N there are valid grounds to disallow respondent from
attending SAMELCO's Board meetings and to disqualify him from running for
re-election, are not purely legal questions. Respondent's failure to file a
complaint before the NEA prevents him from filing a petition for prohibition
before the RTC since he failed to exhaust all administrative remedies.
Disposition:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED.

Exceptions from the use of doctrine of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of

administrative remedies:
(a) estoppel on the party invoking the doctrine;