FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236401. April 16, 2018.]
BUKIDNON SECOND ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., REPRESENTED BY FR. DANILO T. PACIENTE, petitioner, vs.NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION (NEA), EDGARDO R. MASONGSONG, IN HIS CAPACITY AS NEA ADMINISTRATOR AND NEA MANAGEMENT TEAM MEMBERS: OMAR M. MAYO, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 16, 2018which reads as follows: caITAC
"G.R. No. 236401 (Bukidnon Second Electric Cooperative, Inc., represented by Fr. Danilo T. Paciente v. National Electrification Administration (NEA), Edgardo R. Masongsong, in his capacity as NEA Administrator and NEA Management Team Members: Omar M. Mayo, et al.).
Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Resolution 2 dated June 2, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 08105-MIN dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by Bukidnon Second Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BUSECO) questioning the Office Order No. 2017-080 issued by the National Electrification Administration (NEA) Administrator Edgardo R. Masongsong (Masongsong).
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.
We do not, however, subscribe with the CA's finding that the petition for certiorari is a wrong mode of appeal by virtue of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
Section 1 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court states that:
Section 1. Scope. — This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. 6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission, Agricultural Invention Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law. (Emphasis Ours)
Under the said provision, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court only comes into play as regards the final judgment or order of the NEA. In this case, what was questioned before the CA is not the final judgment or order of the NEA but the Office Order No. 2017-080 issued by NEA Administrator Masongsong. As such, a petition for certiorari to question the said order cannot be said to be a wrong remedy. A petition for certiorari can be the remedy to question the orders of a tribunal, board, officer or a quasi-judicial body which was rendered without or in excess of its jurisdiction. ICHDca
While, We find that the petition for certiorari is a proper remedy to question Office Order No. 2017-080, the case still merits a dismissal of the petition.
It must be noted that BUSECO directly filed a petition for certiorari before the CA without exhausting its administrative remedies before the NEA Board.
In the case of Samar II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (SAMELCO II), et al. v. Ananias D. Seludo, Jr., 3 this Court discussed the importance of exhausting administrative remedies, thus:
x x x. The Court, in a long line of cases, has held that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the courts, it is a pre-condition that he avail himself of all administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can be resorted to by giving the administrative officer every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy must be exhausted first before the court's power of judicial review can be sought. The premature resort to the court is fatal to one's cause of action. Accordingly, absent any finding of waiver or estoppel, the case may be dismissed for lack of cause of action. 4
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.
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.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The Resolution dated June 2, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 08105-MIN is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." Sereno, C.J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-32.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo B. Martin, with Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Louis P. Acosta, concurring. Id. at 47-51.
3. 686 Phil. 786 (2012).
4.Id. at 796.