Remo v. Bueno
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: An administrative complaint for gross mismanagement and corruption was filed by member-consumers of Batangas II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BATELEC II) against its Board of Directors, including the petitioners, before the National Electrification Administration (NEA). The complaint alleged, among other things, the awarding of a P75 million computerization project without bidding to an undercapitalized bidder and the authorization of the unprogrammed purchase of boom trucks at an inflated price. 2. Procedural History: The NEA, after administrative proceedings, issued a decision on October 5, 2006, ordering the removal of several members of the BATELEC II Board of Directors, including the petitioners, and disqualifying them from future elections. Subsequently, NEA Administrator Edita S. Bueno issued an order on October 9, 2006, directing the reorganization of the BATELEC II Board and the election of new officers, stating that the vacancies would not be counted for quorum purposes. The petitioners sought a reconsideration of the NEA decision and then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing Administrator Bueno's order. The CA dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The petitioners then filed a petition for review on certiorari with this Court (G.R. No. 175736). Separately, the petitioners filed a petition for indirect contempt (G.R. No. 175898) alleging disobedience to a subsequent status quo ante order issued by this Court. 3. The Petition: In G.R. No. 175736, the petitioners seek, via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision. They argue that the NEA's decision should not have been immediately executory pending resolution of their motion for reconsideration, contending that Section 15 of the NEA Rules of Procedure is contrary to Presidential Decree No. 269. They also challenge the CA's ruling that a minority of the board could constitute a quorum. In G.R. No. 175898, the petitioners seek to cite respondents for indirect contempt for allegedly disobeying this Court's status quo ante order by preventing them from reassuming their positions.
Issue(s)
Whether Section 15 of the NEA Rules of Procedure is valid and consistent with Presidential Decree No. 269. Whether the remaining seven directors of BATELEC II constituted a valid quorum to reorganize the board. Whether respondents are guilty of indirect contempt for allegedly defying the Supreme Court's Status Quo Ante Order.
Ruling
1. The petition in G.R. No. 175736 is DENIED. Section 15 of the NEA Rules is VALID. 2. The reorganization by the seven remaining directors was VALID as they constituted a quorum of the directors 'in office.' 3. The petition for indirect contempt in G.R. No. 175898 is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the National Electrification Administration (NEA) possesses quasi-judicial functions and is empowered by Section 49 of Presidential Decree No. 269 to establish its own rules of procedure. Section 15 of the NEA Rules, which provides that decisions are immediately executory despite a pending Motion for Reconsideration (MR), does not contradict the enabling law. The Court noted that Section 60 of Presidential Decree No. 269 specifically states that the institution of a writ of certiorari shall not stay any order of the NEA unless the Court so directs, which implies the immediately executory nature of NEA rulings. Furthermore, the requirement in Section 58 of Presidential Decree No. 269 to file an MR before seeking judicial review is a matter of exhaustion of administrative remedies and does not inherently stay the execution of the judgment. Similar rules exist for other quasi-judicial bodies like the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), where decisions are immediately executory to ensure the continuous delivery of public services. Therefore, the Court of Appeals (CA) correctly applied Section 15 in upholding the immediate removal of the petitioners. On Issue 2: Under Section 24(d) of Presidential Decree No. 269, a quorum is defined as a 'majority of the board of directors in office.' The Court emphasized the phrase 'in office' as the determining factor for quorum calculation. Because the NEA decision dated October 5, 2006, was immediately executory, the eight petitioners were legally removed from their positions the moment the decision was issued. Consequently, they were no longer 'directors in office' when the reorganization took place on October 10, 2006. At that time, only seven directors remained 'in office.' A majority of seven is four; thus, the presence and action of the seven remaining directors clearly satisfied the quorum requirement. The Court rejected the petitioners' argument that the quorum should be based on the original fifteen seats, as the law specifically refers to those currently holding office. On Issue 3: The charge of indirect contempt was dismissed because petitioners failed to prove a willful and obstinate defiance of the Status Quo Ante Order (SQAO). The Court found that the refusal of security guards to allow petitioners entry into the BATELEC II premises was based on NEA Bulletin No. 35, which prohibits directors from holding regular office hours or intruding in day-to-day management. Petitioners attempted to enter the premises when no board meeting was scheduled, and thus they had no right to demand entry under the guise of the SQAO. Furthermore, respondents Evangelito Estaca and Marilyn Caguimbal were not original parties to G.R. No. 175736 and acted in good faith to maintain peace and order within the cooperative. Since contempt proceedings are criminal in nature, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the respondents, especially when their actions were not shown to be contumacious or intended to impede the administration of justice.
Main Doctrine
The National Electrification Administration (NEA) is a quasi-judicial agency empowered to adopt its own rules of procedure. Section 15 of the NEA Rules, which renders its decisions immediately executory despite the pendency of a motion for reconsideration, is a valid exercise of its rule-making power and is consistent with Section 60 of Presidential Decree No. 269. The 'immediately executory' nature of such decisions means that removed directors are no longer 'in office' for the purpose of determining a quorum under Section 24(d) of Presidential Decree No. 269. Consequently, a majority of the remaining directors who have not been removed constitutes a valid quorum to conduct the business of the cooperative.