set2 specpro

8/13/2019 set2 specpro

1/33

G.R. No. 192908 August 22, 2012

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, rerese!te" #$ t%e &EPART'ENT OF PUBLIC(OR)S AN& HIGH(A*S +&P(H, Petitioner,vs.

ST. -INCENT &E PAUL COLLEGES, INC., Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

RE*ES, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1under Rule 4 of the Rules ofCourt, where petitioner Repu!li" of the Philippines #Repu!li"$, represented !% theDepart&ent of Pu!li" 'or(s and )i*hwa%s throu*h the Offi"e of the Soli"itor +eneral,uestions the resolutions of the Court of -ppeals #C-$ in C-+.R. SP No. 1/04, towit2

1. Resolution dated O"to!er 3/, //dis&issin* petitioner5s petition for certiorariunderRule 6 for !ein* filed out of ti&e7 and

. Resolution dated 8ul% 1, /1/3den%in* petitioner5s &otion for re"onsideration.

A!tee"e!t F/ts

9he instant "ase arose fro& two "ases filed !% the Repu!li" see(in* e:propriation of"ertain properties in the na&e of St. ;in"ent de Paul Colle*es, In". #St. ;in"ent$. In CivilCase No. //6/4, the Repu!li" sou*ht to e:propriate 1, suare &eters out of a

total area of 6,/60 suare &eters of land for the "onstru"tion of the awit, Cavite. In Civil Case No. /1///4, on theother hand, the Repu!li" sou*ht to e:propriate ,4/ suare &eters out of a total areaof ,/3 suare &eters, also !elon*in* to St. ;in"ent and "overed !% 9C9 No. 9011?/. Said propert% ad=oins the propert% su!=e"t of Civil Case No. //6/4.

Su!seuentl%, the Repu!li" filed in !oth "ases an a&ended "o&plaint alle*in* that thesu!=e"t land ori*inated fro& a free patent title and should !e ad=udi"ated to it withoutpa%&ent of =ust "o&pensation pursuant to Se"tion 11 of Co&&onwealth -"t No. 141.

On -u*ust , //, the Repu!li" filed in Civil Case No. //6/4 a &otion for theissuan"e of an order of e:propriation.4It was *ranted !% the trial "ourt per Orderdated-u*ust 16, //, rulin* that the Repu!li" has a lawful ri*ht to ta(e the 1, suare&eters portion of the su!=e"t propert%, with @no pronoun"e&ent as to =ust"o&pensation@ sin"e the su!=e"t propert% ori*inated fro& a free patent.6- &otion for theissuan"e of an order of e:propriation was li(ewise filed !% the Repu!li" in Civil CaseNo. /1///4 !ut !efore this "ould !e resolved, the Repu!li" &oved to "onsolidate thetwo "ases, whi"h was *ranted !% the trial "ourt.?
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_192908_2012.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_192908_2012.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_192908_2012.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_192908_2012.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_192908_2012.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_192908_2012.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_192908_2012.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_192908_2012.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_192908_2012.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_192908_2012.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_192908_2012.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_192908_2012.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_192908_2012.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_192908_2012.html#fnt7


2/33

On Nove&!er 16, //6, the trial "ourt denied St. ;in"ent5s &otion for re"onsideration ofits Order dated -u*ust 16, // *rantin* e:propriation.0-s alle*ed in the petition, noappeal was ta(en !% St. ;in"ent fro& said orders.

-fter al&ost %ears, or on 8ul% 0, //0, St. ;in"ent filed a


3/33

e:tensions of ti&e are now disallowed !% -.


4/33

Nevertheless, the C- su!seuentl% dis&issed the petition filed !% the Repu!li" on the*round that the sa&e was filed out of ti&e, followin* -.


5/33

In ele"tion "ases involvin* an a"t or an o&ission of a &uni"ipal or a re*ional trial "ourt,the petition shall !e filed e:"lusivel% with the Co&&ission on Ele"tions, in aid of itsappellate =urisdi"tion.

In interpretin* said a&end&ent, the Court, in Laguna Metts Corporation, held that2

-s a rule, an a&end&ent !% the deletion of "ertain words or phrases indi"ates anintention to "han*e its &eanin*. It is presu&ed that the deletion would not have !een&ade if there had !een no intention to effe"t a "han*e in the &eanin* of the law or rule.9he a&ended law or rule should a""ordin*l% !e *iven a "onstru"tion different fro& thatprevious to its a&end&ent.

If the Court intended to retain the authorit% of the proper "ourts to *rant e:tensionsunder Se"tion 4 of Rule 6, the para*raph providin* for su"h authorit% would have !eenpreserved. 9he re&oval of the said para*raph under the a&end&ent !% -.


6/33

filed within the e:tension sou*ht and, at all events, *iven its &erits.#Citation o&ittedand e&phasis and unders"orin* ours$

'hat see&s to !e a @"onfli"t@ is a"tuall% &ore apparent than real. - readin* of thefore*oin* rulin*s leads to the si&ple "on"lusion that Laguna Metts Corporationinvolves

a stri"t appli"ation of the *eneral rule that petitions forcertiorari&ust !e filed stri"tl%within si:t% #6/$ da%s fro& noti"e of =ud*&ent or fro& the order den%in* a &otion forre"onsideration. Do&do&, on the other hand, rela:ed the rule and allowed an e:tensionof the si:t% #6/$da% period su!=e"t to the Court5s sound dis"retion.6

Labao v. Flores?su!seuentl% laid down so&e of the e:"eptions to the stri"t appli"ationof the rule, viF2

Gnder Se"tion 4 of Rule 6 of the 1? Rules of Civil Pro"edure, certiorarishould !einstituted within a period of 6/ da%s fro& noti"e of the =ud*&ent, order, or resolutionsou*ht to !e assailed. 9he 6/da% period is ine:tendi!le to avoid an% unreasona!le

dela% that would violate the "onstitutional ri*hts of parties to a speed% disposition oftheir "ase.

: : : :

)owever, there are re"o*niFed e:"eptions to their stri"t o!servan"e, su"h as2 #1$ &ostpersuasive and wei*ht% reasons7 #$ to relieve a liti*ant fro& an in=usti"e not"o&&ensurate with his failure to "o&pl% with the pres"ri!ed pro"edure7 #3$ *ood faith ofthe defaultin* part% !% i&&ediatel% pa%in* within a reasona!le ti&e fro& the ti&e of thedefault7 #4$ the e:isten"e of spe"ial or "o&pellin* "ir"u&stan"es7 #$ the &erits of the"ase7 #6$ a "ause not entirel% attri!uta!le to the fault or ne*li*en"e of the part% favored

!% the suspension of the rules7 #?$ a la"( of an% showin* that the review sou*ht is&erel% frivolous and dilator%7 #0$ the other part% will not !e un=ustl% pre=udi"ed there!%7#$ fraud, a""ident, &ista(e or e:"usa!le ne*li*en"e without appellant5s fault7 #1/$pe"uliar le*al and euita!le "ir"u&stan"es attendant to ea"h "ase7 #11$ in the na&e ofsu!stantial =usti"e and fair pla%7 #1$ i&portan"e of the issues involved7 and #13$e:er"ise of sound dis"retion !% the =ud*e *uided !% all the attendant "ir"u&stan"es.9hus, there should !e an effort on the part of the part% invo(in* li!eralit% to advan"e areasona!le or &eritorious e:planation for hisher failure to "o&pl% with therules.0#Citations o&itted and e&phasis ours$

Note that Labaoe:pli"itl% re"o*niFed the *eneral rule that the si:t% #6/$da% period

within whi"h to file a petition forcertiorariunder Rule 6 is none:tendi!le, onl% thatthere are "ertain e:"eptional "ir"u&stan"es, whi"h &a% "all for its nono!servan"e.Even &ore re"entl%, in Mid"#slands $o!er %eneration Corporation v. Court of

Appeals,the Court, ta(in* into "onsideration Laguna Metts Corporationand Domdom,@rela:ed the pro"edural te"hni"alities introdu"ed under -.


7/33

In Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals, we e:plained that the reason !ehindthe a&end&ents under -.


8/33

-""ordin*l%, the C- should have ad&itted the Repu!li"5s petition2 first, due to its ownlapse when it *ranted the e:tension sou*ht !% the Repu!li" per Resolution dated -pril3/, //7 se"ond, !e"ause of the pu!li" interest involved, i.e., e:propriation of privatepropert% for pu!li" use #


9/33

the "ases sou*ht to !e "onsolidated differed4fro& that to !e presented in the one whi"h!ore the lowest do"(et nu&!er. It is *athered fro& the re"ords that theSandi*an!a%an ourth Division also denied petitioner5s


10/33

9he Court finds that the issue raised !% petitioner had !een dul% raised and passedupon !% the Sandi*an!a%an 9hird Division, it havin* denied "onsolidation in tworesolutions7 that the issue "alls for resolution and an% further dela% would pre=udi"e theinterests of petitioner7 and that the issue raised is one purel% of law, the fa"ts not !ein*"ontested. 9here is thus a&ple =ustifi"ation for rela:in* the rule reuirin* the prior filin*

of a &otion for re"onsideration.

On the People5s ar*u&ent that a &otion for e:tension of ti&e to file a petition for"ertiorari is no lon*er allowed, the sa&e rests on sha(% *rounds. Supposedl%, thedeletion of the followin* provision in Se"tion 4 of Rule 6 !% -.


11/33

- "ourt &a% order several a"tions pendin* !efore it to !e tried to*ether where the% arisefro& the sa&e a"t, event or transa"tion, involve the sa&e or li(e issues, and dependlar*el% or su!stantiall% on the sa&e eviden"e, provided that the "ourt has =urisdi"tionover the "ases to !e "onsolidated and that a =oint trial will not *ive one part% an undueadvanta*e or pre=udi"e the su!stantial ri*hts of an% of the parties. #e&phasis and

unders"orin* supplied.$

9he rule allowin* "onsolidation is desi*ned to avoid &ultipli"it% of suits, to *uard a*ainstoppression or a!use, to prevent dela%s, to "lear "on*ested do"(ets, and to si&plif% thewor( of the trial "ourt in short, the attain&ent of =usti"e with the least e:pense andve:ation to the partiesliti*ants.

9hus, in Philippine Savin*s Ban( v.


12/33

PAGENTE, 6ESUS E. ARENA, CRISPIN A. NA-ALES, OSCAR '. -ENTE,ARTE'IO B. ARAGON, ARNOL& '. CANTAR, ALBERTO T. CUA&ERO, RAS'I E.RON;UILLO, PE&RO R. GABUTAN, ELPE&IO E. 'ENTANG,(ILFRE&O R.'I


13/33

9he petitioner and S


14/33

// noti"e to report for new assi*n&ents did not toll the 6&onth @floatin* status@period sin"e the respondents failed to re"eive the noti"e !efore the appointed date, asSor t%e Reso!"e!ts

In "ontrast, the respondents su!&it that2 #a$ De"e&!er 6, //6 is the re"(onin* date ofthe 6/da% period7 #!$ -tt%. Plando5s O"to!er 13, //6 re"eipt did not !ind the&!e"ause his se"retar%, Sonia


15/33

(e >!" t%e etto! ertorous.Te!ess o> t%e CA etto! >or ertor/r

Gnder Se"tion 4 of Rule 6 of the 1? Rules of Civil Pro"edure, 13"ertiorari should !einstituted within a period of 6/ da%s fro& noti"e of the =ud*&ent, order, or resolution

sou*ht to !e assailed.14

9he 6/da% period is ine:tendi!le to avoid an% unreasona!ledela% that would violate the "onstitutional ri*hts of parties to a speed% disposition oftheir "ase.1

9i&e and a*ain, we have stressed that pro"edural rules do not e:ist for the"onvenien"e of the liti*ants7 the rules were esta!lished pri&aril% to provide order to, andenhan"e the effi"ien"% of, our =udi"ial s%ste&.16'hile pro"edural rules are li!erall%"onstrued, the provisions on re*le&entar% periods are stri"tl% applied, indispensa!le asthe% are to the prevention of needless dela%s, and are ne"essar% to the orderl% andspeed% dis"har*e of =udi"ial !usiness.1?9he ti&eliness of filin* a pleadin* is a

=urisdi"tional "aveat that even this Court "annot trifle with.10

;iewed in this li*ht, pro"edural rules are not to !e !elittled or dis&issed si&pl% !e"ausetheir nono!servan"e &a% have pre=udi"ed a part%Js su!stantive ri*hts7 li(e all rules,the% are reuired to !e followed. &avvphi&

)owever, there are re"o*niFed e:"eptions to their stri"t o!servan"e, su"h as2 #1$ &ostpersuasive and wei*ht% reasons7 #$ to relieve a liti*ant fro& an in=usti"e not"o&&ensurate with his failure to "o&pl% with the pres"ri!ed pro"edure7 #3$ *ood faith ofthe defaultin* part% !% i&&ediatel% pa%in* within a reasona!le ti&e fro& the ti&e of thedefault7 #4$ the e:isten"e of spe"ial or "o&pellin* "ir"u&stan"es7 #$ the &erits of the"ase7 #6$ a "ause not entirel% attri!uta!le to the fault or ne*li*en"e of the part% favored

!% the suspension of the rules7 #?$ a la"( of an% showin* that the review sou*ht is&erel% frivolous and dilator%7 #0$ the other part% will not !e un=ustl% pre=udi"ed there!%7#$ fraud, a""ident, &ista(e or e:"usa!le ne*li*en"e without appellantJs fault7 #1/$pe"uliar le*al and euita!le "ir"u&stan"es attendant to ea"h "ase7 #11$ in the na&e ofsu!stantial =usti"e and fair pla%7 #1$ i&portan"e of the issues involved7 and #13$e:er"ise of sound dis"retion !% the =ud*e *uided !% all the attendant"ir"u&stan"es.19hus, there should !e an effort on the part of the part% invo(in*li!eralit% to advan"e a reasona!le or &eritorious e:planation for hisher failure to "o&pl%with the rules.&avvphi&

Negge!e o> >orer ou!se #!"s t%e reso!"e!ts

In the present "ase, the respondents5 petition for "ertiorari was filed twent%ei*ht #0$da%s late fro& -tt%. Plando5s O"to!er 13, //6 re"eipt of the Septe&!er , //6resolution. 9he respondents insist that the% should not suffer for -tt%. Plando5sne*li*en"e in failin* to infor& the& of the Septe&!er , //6 resolution, and there"(onin* date for the 6/da% period should !e their De"e&!er 6, //6 noti"e.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_187984_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_187984_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_187984_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_187984_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_187984_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_187984_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_187984_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_187984_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_187984_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_187984_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_187984_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_187984_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_187984_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_187984_2010.html#fnt19


16/33


17/33

G.R. No. 189191 Fe#ru/r$ 29, 2012

'"4Is/!"s Po@er Ge!er/to! Coror/to!, Petitioner,vs.Court o> Ae/s, Po@er O!e Coror/to!, Is/!"s Gr" Net@or P%!es, I!.,

&/" T/!, /!" '/!ue L/uro!,

Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

SERENO, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohi!ition filed under Rule 6 of theRules of Court, assailin* the 3 De"e&!er //0 and 3 8une // Resolutions of theCourt of -ppeals #C-$.19he "ore issue at !en"h is whether the C- had the authorit% to*rant a


18/33

would own and i&ple&ent Phase 1 of ES-CENECO, whi"h involved e:istin* andproposed power plants in -li=is Distri"t, Ba"olod Cit%7 and Phase 1 of ES-ORenneth G%, to the re&ainin*1A of the outstandin* "apital sto"( of


19/33


20/33

On 6 Nove&!er //6, the Pasi* R9C issued an Order11*rantin* the pra%er of


21/33

On De"e&!er //0, Power One filed a


22/33

In a Resolution dated 4 De"e&!er //?, the Supre&e Court En Ban" issued -.


23/33

Indeed, we have rela:ed the pro"edural te"hni"alities introdu"ed under -.


24/33

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 18:220 6u$ 27, 2009

LAGUNA 'ETTS CORPORATION,Petitioner,

vs.COURT OF APPEALS, ARIES C. CAALA' /!" GERAL&INEESGUERRA,Respondents.

R E S O G 9 I O N

CORONA, J.:

9his petition arose fro& a la!or "ase filed !% private respondents -ries C. Caala& and+eraldine Es*uerra a*ainst petitioner a*una


25/33

Rules of pro"edure &ust !e faithfull% "o&plied with and should not !e dis"arded withthe &ere e:pedien"% of "lai&in* su!stantial &erit.0-s a "orollar%, rules pres"ri!in* theti&e for doin* spe"ifi" a"ts or for ta(in* "ertain pro"eedin*s are "onsidered /#soute$!"se!s/#e to prevent needless dela%s and to orderl% and pro&ptl% dis"har*e

=udi"ial !usiness. B% their ver% nature, these rules are re*arded as &andator%.

In De Los Santos v. Court of Appeals,1/we ruled2

Se"tion 4 of Rule 6 pres"ri!es a period of 6/ da%s within whi"h to file a petition for"ertiorari. T%e =04"/$ ero" s "eee" re/so!/#e /!" su>>e!t te >or / /rt$to u oer /!" to re/re / etto! /ssert!g gr/e /#use o> "sreto! #$ /o@er ourt. T%e ero" @/s se>/$ set to /o" /!$ u!re/so!/#e "e/$ t%/t@ou" o/te t%e o!sttuto!/ rg%ts o> t%e /rtes to / see"$ "sosto! o>t%er /se.#e&phasis supplied$

'hile the proper "ourts previousl% had dis"retion to e:tend the period for filin* a petition

for "ertiorari !e%ond the 6/da% period,11

the a&end&ents to Rule 6 under -.or oe!gre/so! /!" ! !o /se eee"!g 1: "/$s.1#e&phasis supplied$

'ith its a&end&ent under -.


26/33

If the petition relates to an a"t or an o&ission of a &uni"ipal trial "ourt or of a"orporation, a !oard, an offi"er or a person, it shall !e filed with the Re*ional 9rial Courte:er"isin* =urisdi"tion over the territorial area as defined !% the Supre&e Court. It &a%also !e filed in the Court of -ppeals or with the Sandi*an!a%an, whether or not thesa&e is in aid of the "ourt5s appellate =urisdi"tion. lavvphilIf the petition involves an a"t or an

o&ission of a uasi=udi"ial a*en"%, unless otherwise provided !% law or these rules, thepetition shall !e filed with and !e "o*niFa!le onl% !% the Court of -ppeals.

In ele"tion "ases involvin* an a"t or o&ission of a &uni"ipal or a re*ional trial "ourt, thepetition shall !e filed e:"lusivel% with the Co&&ission on Ele"tions, in aid of itsappellate =urisdi"tion.

-s a rule, an a&end&ent !% the deletion of "ertain words or phrases indi"ates anintention to "han*e its &eanin*. It is presu&ed that the deletion would not have !een&ade if there had !een no intention to effe"t a "han*e in the &eanin* of the law or rule.9he a&ended law or rule should a""ordin*l% !e *iven a "onstru"tion different fro& that

previous to its a&end&ent.13

lavvph(l

If the Court intended to retain the authorit% of the proper "ourts to *rant e:tensionsunder Se"tion 4 of Rule 6, the para*raph providin* for su"h authorit% would have !eenpreserved. 9he re&oval of the said para*raph under the a&end&ent !% -.


27/33

-s to the other *round "ited !% private respondents5 "ounsel, suffi"e it to sa% that it wasa !are alle*ation unsu!stantiated !% an% proof or affidavit of &erit. Besides, the% "ouldhave filed the petition on ti&e with a &otion to !e allowed to liti*ate in forma pauperis.'hile so"ial =usti"e reuires that the law loo( tenderl% on the disadvanta*ed se"tors ofso"iet%, neither the ri"h nor the poor has a li"ense to disre*ard rules of pro"edure. 9he

funda&ental rule of hu&an relations en=oins ever%one, re*ardless of standin* in life, todul% o!serve pro"edural rules as an aspe"t of a"tin* with =usti"e, *ivin* ever%one hisdue and o!servin* honest% and *ood faith.1?or indeed, while te"hni"alities should notundul% ha&per our uest for =usti"e, orderl% pro"edure is essential to the su""ess of thatuest to whi"h all "ourts are devoted.10

(HEREFORE, the petition is here!% GRANTE&.9he resolutions dated -u*ust ?, //0and O"to!er , //0 of the Court of -ppeals in C-+.R. SP No. 1/41/are RE-ERSE&and SET ASI&Eand the petition in the said "ase isordered &IS'ISSE&for havin* !een filed out of ti&e.

SO OR&ERE&.G.R. No. 70203 &ee#er 18, 1987

SAL-IO B. FORTUNO /!" CA'ARINES SUR II ELECTRIC COOPERATI-E+CASURECO II, petitioners,vs.HONORABLE 'ERICIA B. PAL'A, ! %er //t$ /s Pres"!g 6u"ge o> Br/!%DDI, Rego!/ Tr/ Court, F>t% 6u"/ Rego!, /!" 6OEL &A-I& S.ABANTE, respondents.

GANCA*CO, J.:

9he issue posed in this petition for "ertiorari and prohi!ition with pra%er for preli&inar%in=un"tion and te&porar% restrainin* order is whether the Re*ional 9rial Court #R9C$has =urisdi"tion over uo warranto pro"eedin*s involvin* the ualifi"ation for&e&!ership of the Board of Dire"tors of an ele"tri" "ooperative.

Petitioner Salvio B. ortuno and respondent 8oel David S. -!ante were "andidates forthe position of dire"tor to represent Distri"t ; of the Ca&arines Sur II Ele"tri"

Cooperative, In". #C-SGRECO II$ at the ele"tions of e!ruar% , 10. On 8anuar% 3/,10, -!ante filed with the National Ele"trifi"ation -d&inistration #NE-$ a petition todisualif% ortuno as "andidate alle*in* that he is not a resident of the area "overa*e ofDistri"t ; as reuired !% the B%laws of the "orporation. 9he NE- dire"ted theC-SGRECO Board of Dire"tors to ta(e appropriate a"tion on the petition in a""ordan"ewith the B%laws and Ele"tion Code. 9he Board indorsed the petition to the Distri"tEle"tion Co&&ittee #DEC$ whi"h is the !od% "har*ed with the dut% of de"idin* allele"tion &atters, in"ludin* protests, uarries, referrals, postpone&ents and
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_185220_2009.html#fnt18


28/33


29/33

9he "o&&ent thereon havin* !een filed !% the respondents, on O"to!er , 10 theCourt *ave due "ourse to the petition and reuired the parties to su!&it theirsi&ultaneous &e&oranda. Onl% petitioners su!&itted their &e&oranda. 9he "ase isnow su!&itted for deli!eration.

9he &ain thrust of the petition is that the respondent "ourt has no =urisdi"tion over the"ase "itin* Se"tion 4 of P.D. 6 as a&ended, whi"h vests in the NationalEle"trifi"ation -d&inistration #NE-$ the power of supervision and "ontrol over all ele"tri""ooperatives as follows2

Se"tion 4.)oard of Directors. L #a$ 9he


30/33

"onstituted and authoriFed ad&inistrative !od% in a""ordan"e with theinternal rules and re*ulations of !oth C-SGRECO II and the NationalEle"tri" -d&inistration.


31/33

postpone&ent of the ele"tion and dis&issed the petition. 4$ 9he DECpro"lai&ed ortuno ele"ted havin* *arnered 1,4 votes as a*ainst

-!anteJs votes of 63?. No protest was filed !% -!ante within the ?hourre*le&entar% period as alle*edl% provided for in Se"tion 1 of the Ele"tri"Cooperative Ele"tion Code.

9he ele"ted !oard of C-SGRECO II will assu&e their position for a ter&of 3 %ears on


32/33

to restore the for&er dire"tors, and the issuan"e thereof"onstitute an e:"ess of =urisdi"tion and a!use of dis"retion.

9he Court has read the "ase and found that the fa"ts of the "ase has noparallel to the "ase at !ar. 9he do"trine laid down in said "ase "annot

appl% even !% analo*% to the present "ase. 9he JRepl% to the o!=e"tionJfiled !% petitionerJs "ounsel has "learl% pointed out the stri(in* differen"e!etween the two "ases and the inappli"a!ilit% of said "ase to the "ase at!ar.

9he rule re*ardin* e:haustion of ad&inistrative re&edies is not a!solutee:"ept when there is an e:press le*al provision reuirin* su"had&inistrative step as a "ondition pre"edent to ta(in* a"tion in "ourt. 9hisspe"iall% in point ta(in* the fa"t raised !% the respondent that the positionis not a pu!li" offi"e whi"h would !e stri"tl% su!=e"t to the hierar"h% ofhi*her ad&inistrative offi"es. ailure to e:haust ad&inistrative re&edies

&a% possi!l% affe"t the "ause of a"tion !ut not the =urisdi"tion of the Court.-nother fa"tor, in this parti"ular "ase, is that the petitioner, has no otheri&&ediate and adeuate re&ed% than to *o to "ourt in view of theforth"o&in* assu&ption of offi"e of the new Board of Dire"tors whi"hwould not afford suffi"ient ti&e to raise the &atter to the hi*her NE-authorities in


33/33

availa!le to a person havin* an interest whi"h is in=uriousl% affe"ted. 89he a"tion &a%also !e !rou*ht !% a pu!li" utilit% whose ri*hts are invaded !% another. 9

9he Supre&e Court has "on"urrent =urisdi"tion over uo warranto pro"eedin*s with theRe*ional 9rial Court in the provin"e in whi"h the defendant or one of the defendants

reside, or when defendant is a "orporation, in the provin"e in whi"h it is do&i"iled or hasa pla"e of !usiness7 !ut when the Soli"itor +eneral of the Philippines "o&&en"es thea"tion, it &a% !e !rou*ht in a Court of irst Instan"e in the Cit% of

set2 specpro

Documents

Transcript of set2 specpro