National Electrification Administration v. Gonzaga
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Victoriano B. Gonzaga filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the Board of Directors of Zamboanga del Sur II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ZAMSURECO). The screening committee disqualified him because his spouse was an incumbent member of the Sangguniang Bayan, a position higher than Barangay Captain. This disqualification was based on the Electric Cooperative Election Code (ECEC) promulgated by the National Electrification Administration (NEA), despite ZAMSURECO's by-laws not containing such a disqualification ground. Procedural History: Respondent filed a Petition for Prohibition and Damages with the Pagadian City Regional Trial Court (RTC), which initially denied ZAMSURECO's Motion to Dismiss but issued a temporary restraining order. The RTC later admitted an amended petition impleading NEA as an indispensable party and questioning the ECEC's validity due to lack of publication. NEA filed a Motion to Dismiss, challenging the RTC's jurisdiction and alleging failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The RTC denied NEA's motion, finding the ECEC null and void for non-publication and ruling that the issues were within the court's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, dismissing NEA's appeal and its motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The National Electrification Administration (NEA), as petitioner, seeks review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. NEA argues that only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review its acts, citing Section 59 of Presidential Decree No. 269. The petition also challenges the CA's upholding of the trial court's nullification of the ECEC. NEA contends that the ECEC, as a rule-making act, should be reviewed by the Supreme Court and that the lower courts erred in nullifying it for lack of publication, asserting that the proper recourse should have been a petition for declaratory relief, not prohibition and mandamus.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not applying Section 59 of P.D. 269. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court’s nullification of the ECEC.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The March 6, 2003 Decision and June 10, 2003 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 68769 are affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of applying Section 59 of P.D. 269: The Court held that Section 59 of PD 269, which grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction to review orders, rulings, or decisions of the NEA, specifically refers to NEA's quasi-judicial functions. In this case, the challenge was not against a quasi-judicial act of NEA, but against the validity of the Electric Cooperative Election Code (ECEC) itself, which was issued pursuant to NEA's rule-making authority. The Court clarified that the issue of disqualification and the ECEC's validity are matters within the inherent jurisdiction of regular courts to review. Therefore, NEA's reliance on Section 59 of PD 269, as interpreted in NEA v. Mendoza, was misplaced because the subject matter in NEA v. Mendoza concerned electricity rates, a matter clearly within NEA's jurisdiction, unlike the present case which centers on the validity of NEA's rules in light of publication requirements. On the issue of upholding the trial court’s nullification of the ECEC: The Court found no error in the appellate and trial courts' nullification of the ECEC for non-compliance with publication requirements. Article 2 of the New Civil Code and Section 18 of the Administrative Code of 1987 mandate that laws and administrative rules and regulations affecting the public must be published in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation to be effective. The ECEC, being a rule issued by NEA pursuant to its rule-making authority under PD 269 and affecting all electric cooperatives, was subject to this publication requirement. The Court noted that NEA failed to provide proof of publication, which was further supported by a certification from the National Printing Office. The Court reiterated the ruling in Tañada v. Tuvera that administrative rules and regulations must be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law. Since the ECEC was not published, it could not be enforced or implemented, rendering it null and void. The Court also affirmed that a petition for prohibition and mandamus was the proper recourse, as an actual dispute had arisen concerning the implementation of the questioned code, distinguishing it from a petition for declaratory relief which requires filing before breach or violation.
Main Doctrine
Administrative rules and regulations, if intended to enforce or implement existing law and affect the public, must be published in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation to be valid and enforceable. Regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of such rules and regulations.