G.R. No.

158761 December 4, 2007

NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION, petitioner,
vs.
ICTORIANO !. GON"AGA, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
ELASCO, #R., , J.$
For review under Rule 45 are the March 6, 2003 Decision
1
and June 10, 2003 Resolution
2
o the
!ourt o "ppeals #!"$ in !"%&.R. '( )o. 6*+6,, which dis-issed petitioner.s appeal o the
Jul/ 23, 2001 0rder
3
o the (a1adian !it/ Re1ional 2rial !ourt #R2!$, 3ranch 21 in !ivil !ase
)o. 42*2%24, and denied petitioner.s Motion or Reconsideration, respectivel/.
0n )ove-5er 13, 2000, respondent 6ictoriano 3. &on7a1a iled his !ertiicate o !andidac/ or
-e-5ership in the 3oard o Directors o 8a-5oan1a del 'ur 99 :lectric !ooperative, 9nc.,
District 99 #8"M';R:!0$. <ater that da/, the screenin1 co--ittee resolved to dis=uali/
respondent 5ecause his spouse was an incu-5ent -e-5er o the Sangguniang Bayan o
Diplahan, 8a-5oan1a del 'ur. 3ased on the :lectric !ooperative :lection !ode #:!:!$,
pro-ul1ated 5/ petitioner )ational :lectriication "d-inistration #):"$, a candidate whose
spouse occupies an elective 1overn-ent position hi1her than 3aran1a/ !aptain is prohi5ited to
run as director o an electric cooperative. 8"M';R:!0.s 5/%laws, however, do not provide or
such 1round or dis=ualiication.
4
0n )ove-5er 21, 2000, respondent iled a (etition or (rohi5ition and Da-a1es, doc>eted as
!ivil !ase )o. 42*2%24 with the (a1adian !it/ R2!.
8"M';R:!0 iled a Motion to Dis-iss and "nswer on )ove-5er 24, 2000, which the R2!
denied. ?owever, it issued a te-porar/ restrainin1 order, orderin1 8"M';R:!0.s oicials to
rerain ro- conductin1 the election or directorship set on Dece-5er 2, 2000.
2he R2! said that the petition was dis-issi5le 5ecause o the ailure o respondent to e@haust all
ad-inistrative re-edies, as re=uired 5/ 'ection 2, 2.! o the :!:! &uidelines on the !onduct
o District :lections or :lectric !ooperative. 2he section re=uired that Aa protest arisin1 ro-
dis=ualiication shall 5e iled with the screenin1 co--ittee in not less than F96: #5$ da/s 5eore
the election. 2he screenin1 co--ittee shall decide the protest within F0R2B%:9&?2 #4*$ hours
ro- receipt thereo. Failure o the applicant to ile hisCher protest within the a5ove%cited period
shall 5e dee-ed a waiver o his ri1ht to protest.A
5
"s o5served 5/ the R2!, respondent had ur1entl/ iled the petition on )ove-5er 21, 2000
5ecause the election sou1ht to 5e restrained was 1oin1 to 5e held on Dece-5er 2, 2000 and
)ove-5er 20 was a holida/. ;nder the circu-stances, respondent had little ti-e to e@haust the
re-ed/ in 'ec. 2 o the &uidelines, such that an e@ception could 5e -ade. More i-portantl/,
accordin1 to the R2!, the rule on e@haustion o ad-inistrative re-edies cannot 5e invo>ed in the
instant case since the 1uidelines prescri5in1 the ad-inistrative re-ed/ is a su5Dect -atter o the
:!:!, which is at issue, and is e@actl/ what is 5ein1 sou1ht to 5e invalidated.
6
0n Dece-5er 12, 2000, respondent iled a -otion to withdraw the a-ended petition, and to
ad-it a second a-ended petition that i-pleaded ):" as indispensa5le part/. Respondent also
averred that the :!:! was null and void 5ecause it had not 5een pu5lished. 0n Dece-5er 20,
2000, the R2! ad-itted the second a-ended petition, issued a writ o preli-inar/ inDunction to
prevent the conduct o election or directorship, issued su--ons to ):", and re=uired ):" to
co--ent i the :!:! was pu5lished in an/ newspaper o 1eneral circulation.
+

0n Januar/ 2,, 2001, ):" iled a -otion or e@tension o ti-e to ile an answer, and
su5se=uentl/ on "pril 10, 2001, a Motion or <eave to "d-it (leadin1 to which a Motion to
Dis-iss was attached. ):" =uestioned the Durisdiction o the R2! and alle1ed that respondent
ailed to e@haust ad-inistrative re-edies.
*

9n its Jul/ 23, 2001 0rder,
,
the R2! denied petitioner.s Motion to Dis-iss or 5ein1 iled out o
ti-e. More i-portantl/, it noted ):".s ailure to state whether the :!:! was indeed pu5lished
in a newspaper o 1eneral circulation as re=uired 5/ the )ew !ivil !ode and the "d-inistrative
!ode o 1,*+. 2he R2! said the ailure rendered the :!:! null and void. "s re1ards the lac> o
Durisdiction and non%e@haustion o ad-inistrative re-edies, the R2! noted that ):" erroneousl/
relied on 'ec. 5, o (residential Decree )o. #(D$ 26, and -isapplied the cases it cited.
"ccordin1 to the R2!, 'ec. 5, o (D 26, reers to Aorder, rulin1 or decision o the ):"A in the
e@ercise o ):".s =uasi%Dudicial unctions. "nd the R2! noted that 'ecs. 51 to 5* reer to
hearin1s, investi1ations, and procedures. 0n the other hand, the validit/ o the :!:!, su5Dect o
the instant petition, was an e@ercise o ):".s =uasi%le1islative unction or rule%-a>in1 authorit/.
Further, accordin1 to the R2!, ):" too> 'ec. 5* o (D 26, out o conte@t when it said 'ec. 5*
dealt with the ad-inistrative re-ed/ availa5le to petitioner. 9t said that 'ec. 5* presupposed a
rulin1 or decision o the ):" and there was none in the case 5eore it. 2he R2! ruled in avor o
&on7a1a, and ordered 8"M';R:!0 to accept &on7a1a.s certiicate o candidac/ or director.
10

2he R2! denied ):".s -otion or reconsideration.
T%e CA R&'e( )%*) )%e Co&r)+ ,*-e #&r.+(.c).o/ O-er
I++&e+ o/ Le0*'.)1 o2 Co(e+
"11rieved, petitioner appealed to the !". 2he !" denied due course and dis-issed the petition.
9t said that ):" was not e@ercisin1 its =uasi%Dudicial powers 5ut its rule%-a>in1 authorit/. 9n the
case 5eore the trial court, the !" stressed that the issue involved the interpretation o the :!:!,
and to this e@tent, ):" had no Durisdiction 5ecause the issue is within the province o the courts.
2he !" denied petitioner.s Motion or Reconsideration in its June 10, 2003 Resolution. ?ence,
we have this petition.
T%e I++&e+
E?:2?:R 0R )02 2?: !0;R2 0F "((:"<' :RR:D 9) )02 "((<B9)&
':!290) 5, 0F (.D. 26,
E?:2?:R 0R )02 2?: !0;R2 0F "((:"<' :RR:D 9) ;(?0<D9)& 2?:
2R9"< !0;R2.' );<<9F9!"290) 0F 2?: :!:!
I++&e+ I/-o'-./0 NEA3+ R&'e4M*5./0 A&)%or.)1
Are Co0/.6*b'e b1 Re0&'*r Co&r)+
2he petition has no -erit.
'ec. 5, o (D 26, providesF
':!. 5,. Court Review.G2he 'upre-e !ourt is here5/ 1iven Durisdiction to review an/
order, rulin1 or decision o the ):" and to -odi/ or set aside such order, rulin1 or
decision when it clearl/ appears that there is no evidence 5eore the ):" to support
reasona5l/ such order, rulin1 or decision, or that the sa-e is contrar/ to law, or that it was
without the Durisdiction o the ):". 2he evidence presented to the ):", to1ether with
the record o the proceedin1s 5eore the ):", shall 5e certiied 5/ the ):" to the
'upre-e !ourt. "n/ order, rulin1 or decision o the ):" -a/ li>ewise 5e reviewed 5/
the 'upre-e !ourt upon writ o certiorari in proper case. 2he procedure or review,
e@cept as herein provided, shall 5e presented 5/ rules o the 'upre-e !ourt. "n/ order or
decision o the ):" -a/ 5e reviewed on the application o an/ person or pu5lic service
entit/ a11rieved there5/ and who was a part/ in the su5Dect proceedin1, 5/ certiorari in
appropriate cases or 5/ a petition or review, which shall 5e iled within thirt/ #30$ da/s
ro- the notiication o the ):" order, decision or rulin1 on reconsideration. 'aid
petition shall 5e placed on ile in the oice o the !ler> or the 'upre-e !ourt who shall
urnish copies thereo to the ):" and other interested parties.
(etitioner ar1ues that 5ased on the ore1oin1 provision, onl/ the 'upre-e !ourt has the authorit/
to review the AactsA o ):" as an ad-inistrative 5od/ with adDudicative and rule%-a>in1 power.
9t cited NEA v. Mendoza, usin1 the !ourt.s pronounce-ent thatF
H2Ihe power o Dudicial review o ):".s order or decision pertains to the 'upre-e !ourt
as decreed in 'ection 5, o (.D. 26, which vests speciicall/ on the Supreme Court the
Durisdiction to review an/ order, rulin1 or decision o the ):" and to -odi/ or set aside
such orders, rulin1s or decisions.
11
9t is o5vious that 'ec. 5, o (D 26, reers to Aorder, rulin1 or decisionA o ):". Ehat is 5ein1
challen1ed in this case is the decision o the screenin1 co--ittee o 8"M';R:!0 to dis=uali/
respondent. <i>ewise assailed is the validit/ o the :!:!, particularl/, whether the re=uire-ent
o pu5lication was co-plied with. 2he :!:! was issued 5/ ):" pursuant to its rule%-a>in1
authorit/, not its =uasi%Dudicial unction. ?ence, the issue re1ardin1 the controvers/ over
respondent.s dis=ualiication and the =uestion on the :!:!.s validit/ are within the inherent
Durisdiction o re1ular courts to review. (etitioner.s reliance on NEA is -isplaced. 2he su5Dect in
that case was the electricit/ rates char1ed 5/ a cooperative, a -atter which is clearl/ within
):".s Durisdiction. 2he issue in the present petition, however, centers on the validit/ o ):".s
rules in li1ht o the pu5lication re=uire-ents o the "d-inistrative !ode and )ew !ivil !ode.
2he present issue is co1ni7a5le 5/ re1ular courts.
Eith re1ard to the second issue, we ind no error in the appellate and trial courts. nulliication o
the :!:!. 2he !" correctl/ o5served that while 8"M';R:!0 co-plied with the re=uire-ents
o ilin1 the code with the ;niversit/ o the (hilippines <aw !enter, it oered no proo o
pu5lication in the Official azette nor in a newspaper o 1eneral circulation. Eithout co-pliance
with the re=uire-ent o pu5lication, the rules and re1ulations contained in the :!:! cannot 5e
enorced and i-ple-ented.
"rticle 2 o the )ew !ivil !ode provides that laws shall ta>e eect ater iteen #15$ da/s
ollowin1 the co-pletion o their pu5lication in the Official azette or in a newspaper o 1eneral
circulation in the (hilippines, unless it is otherwise provided.
:@ecutive 0rder )o. 2,2, otherwise >nown as the Admini!trative Code of "#$%, reinorced the
re=uire-ent o pu5lication and outlined the procedure, as ollowsF
'ec. 3. Filin1. #1$ :ver/ "1enc/ shall ile with the ;niversit/ o the (hilippines <aw
!enter three #3$ !ertiied copies o ever/ rule adopted 5/ it. Rules in orce on the date o
eectivit/ o this !ode which are not iled within three #3$ -onths ro- that date shall
not thereater 5e the 5asis o an/ sanction a1ainst an/ part/ or persons.
#2$ 2he Records 0icer o the a1enc/, or his e=uivalent unctionar/, shall carr/ out the
re=uire-ents o this section under pain o disciplinar/ action.
#3$ " per-anent re1ister o all rules shall 5e >ept 5/ the issuin1 a1enc/ and shall 5e open
to pu5lic inspection.
'ec. 4. :ectivit/ J 9n addition to other rule%-a>in1 re=uire-ents provided 5/ law not
inconsistent with this 3oo>, each rule shall 5eco-e eective iteen #15$ da/s ro- the
date o ilin1 as a5ove provided unless a dierent date is i@ed 5/ law, or speciied in this
rule.
'ec. 1*. Ehen <aws 2a>e :ect J <aws shall ta>e eect ater Fiteen #15$ da/s
ollowin1 the co-pletion o their pu5lication in the 0icial &a7ette or in a newspaper o
1eneral circulation, unless it is otherwise provided.
Ee have alread/ e-phasi7ed and clariied the re=uire-ent o pu5lication in this !ourt.s
Resolution in &a'ada v. &uveraF
Ee hold thereore that all statutes, includin1 those o local application and private laws,
shall 5e pu5lished as a condition or their eectivit/ which shall 5e1in iteen #15$ da/s
ater pu5lication unless a dierent eectivit/ date is i@ed 5/ the le1islature.
!overed 5/ this rule are presidential decrees and e@ecutive orders pro-ul1ated 5/ the
(resident in the e@ercise o le1islative powers whenever the sa-e are validl/ dele1ated
5/ the le1islature or, at present, directl/ conerred 5/ the !onstitution. A(m./.+)r*).-e
r&'e+ */( re0&'*).o/+ m&+) *'+o be 7&b'.+%e( .2 )%e.r 7&r7o+e .+ )o e/2orce or
.m7'eme/) e8.+)./0 '*9 7&r+&*/) *'+o )o * -*'.( (e'e0*).o/.
9nterpretative re1ulations and those -erel/ internal in nature, that is, re1ulatin1 onl/ the
personnel o the ad-inistrative a1enc/ and not the pu5lic, need not 5e pu5lished. )either
is pu5lication re=uired o the so%called letters o instructions issued 5/ ad-inistrative
superiors concernin1 the rules or 1uidelines to 5e ollowed 5/ their su5ordinates in the
peror-ance o their duties. #:-phasis supplied.$
12
2he aore=uoted rulin1 was reiterated in (adole v. Commi!!ion on Audit,
13
(e )e!u! v.
Commi!!ion on Audit*
14
and +hilippine ,nternational &rading Corporation v. Commi!!ion on
Audit.
15
9n the case at 5ar, the :!:! was issued 5/ petitioner pursuant to its rule%-a>in1 authorit/
provided in (D 26,, as a-ended, particularl/ 'ec. 24F
'ection 24. 3oard o Directors. G #a$ 2he Mana1e-ent o a !ooperative shall 5e vested
in its 3oard, su5Dect to the supervision and control o ):" which shall have the ri1ht to
5e represented and to participate in all 3oard -eetin1s and deli5erations and to approve
all policies and resolutions.
2he co-position, =ualiications, the -anner o elections and illin1 o vacancies, the
procedures or holdin1 -eetin1s and other si-ilar provisions shall 5e deined in the 3/%
laws o the !ooperative su5Dect to ):" policies, rules and re1ulations @ @ @.
2he :!:! applies to all electric cooperatives in the countr/. 9t is not a -ere internal
-e-orandu-, interpretative re1ulation, or instruction to su5ordinates. 2hus, the :!:! should
co-pl/ with the re=uire-ents o the !ivil !ode and the "d-inistrative !ode o 1,*+. 9n
previous cases involvin1 the election o directors or electric cooperatives, the validit/ o the
:!:! was not put in issue. 2he :!:! then enDo/ed the presu-ption o validit/. 9n this case,
however, respondent directl/ =uestioned the validit/ o the :!:! in his second a-ended
petition. 2he trial court thus re=uired petitioner to show proo o pu5lication o the :!:!.
(etitioner could have easil/ provided such proo had the :!:! actuall/ 5een pu5lished in the
Official azette or newspaper o 1eneral circulation in the countr/. 2his si-ple proo could have
i--ediatel/ laid this case to rest. (etitioner.s ailure to do so onl/ i-plies that the :!:! was
not pu5lished accordin1l/, a act supported 5/ the certiication ro- the )ational (rintin1 0ice.
<astl/, petitioner avers that a petition or -anda-us and prohi5ition should not have 5een
resorted to 5/ respondent. 2he proper recourse, accordin1 to petitioner, is a petition or
declarator/ relie. (etitioner -isera5l/ errs on this point. Rule 63 on declarator/ relie statesF
'ection 1. Eho -a/ ile petition.G"n/ person interested under a deed, will, contract or
other written instru-ent, or whose ri1hts are aected 5/ a statute, e@ecutive order or
re1ulation, ordinance, or an/ other 1overn-ental re1ulation -a/, 5eore 5reach or
violation thereo, 5rin1 an action in the appropriate Re1ional 2rial !ourt to deter-ine an/
=uestion o construction or validit/ arisin1, and or a declaration o his ri1hts or duties
thereunder.
"s stated a5ove, a re=uire-ent under Rule 63 is that the petition or declarator/ relie -ust 5e
iled A5eore an/ 5reach or violationA the =uestioned docu-ent -a/ cause. 9n the instant case, it
cannot 5e 1ainsaid that a 5reach has not /et occurred since an actual dispute has alread/ arisen
5etween 8"M';R:!0 and respondentJJthe screenin1 co--ittee o the cooperative on the
erroneous i-ple-entation o a code whose le1alit/ and i-ple-entation is 5ein1 =uestioned.
0n the other hand, it is a-iliar and unda-ental doctrine that a writ o prohi5ition or -anda-us
-a/ issue when A@ @ @ a 5oard unlawull/ e@cludes another ro- @ @ @ enDo/-ent o a ri1ht or
oice to which such other is entitled @ @ @.A
16
!onsiderin1 that the screenin1 co--ittee o the 5oard has e@cluded respondent ro- 5ein1
elected as 5oard -e-5er o 8"M';R:!0 5ecause o the latter.s i-proper i-ple-entation o
the code, a petition or -anda-us and prohi5ition is the proper recourse.
:,EREFORE, we DEN; the petition, and AFFIRM IN TOTO the March 6, 2003 Decision
and June 10, 2003 Resolution in !"%&.R. '( )o. 6*+6,. !osts a1ainst petitioner.
SO ORDERED.