The Supreme Court has affirmed a Court of Appeals (CA) ruling dismissing the petition filed by an electric cooperative in Bukidnon that questioned the National Electrification Administration (NEA) for designating a management team to temporarily supervise the power utility.
The High Court’s First Division, in its decision dated April 16, 2018, denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the Bukidnon Second Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Buseco) through its Board President Rev. Fr. Danilo Paciente against NEA Administrator Edgardo Masongsong and other officials.
In junking the petition, the SC cited Buseco’s failure to prove that the CA has committed a reversible error in its Resolution dated June 2, 2017 to dismiss the case.
The case stemmed from the Office Order No. 2017-080 issued by NEA Administrator Edgardo Masongsong on May 5, 2017 creating a team to oversee the management of Buseco due to internal conflict among its Board of Directors, allegations of irregularities, and to ensure its continued operational and financial viability.
Buseco questioned the Office Order before the CA by filing a petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of injunction. It alleged that the NEA Administrator has no authority to issue said order.
The CA dismissed the case and held that Buseco availed of the wrong mode of appeal for the petition, prompting the latter to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court. However, the High Tribunal affirmed the resolution of the CA, finally throwing out the petition.
“After a perusal of the records of the case, this Court resolves to deny the Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure of the petitioner to show that the CA committed a reversible error in dismissing the complaint,” the SC ruling read.
The SC also pointed out that Buseco directly filed a petition for certiorari without exhausting its administrative remedies before the NEA Board of Administrators.
“Buseco did not give the NEA Board the opportunity to decide on whether the Office Order No. 2017-080 was a valid exercise of their jurisdiction. In fact, no complaint or even a final order of judgment of the NEA Board were presented to show that Buseco questioned the said office order before the NEA Board,” the SC said.
“Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court requires that there must be no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law. In fact, Buseco did not feel the need to proffer any explanation as to its need for a direct resort to the court,” the High Court decision added.
The NEA received a copy of the SC decision on August 1. ###