`LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs COURT OF APPEALS (Romero1, 199 !

FACTS The residents of Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City raised a complaint with the Laguna Lake Development Authority LLDA!, seeking to stop the operation of the City "overnment of Caloocan of an #$% hectare open gar&age dumpsite in Tala Estate, due to its harmful effects on the health of the residents and the pollution of the surrounding water$ LLDA discovered that the City "overnment of Caloocan has &een maintaining the open dumpsite at the Camarin Area without a re'uisite Environmental Compliance Certificate from the Environmental (anagement Bureau of the DE)*$ They also found the water to have &een directly contaminated &y the operation of the dumpsite$ LLDA issued a Ce"se "#$ Des%s& Or$er against the City "overnment and other entities to completely halt, stop and desist from dumping any form or kind of gar&age and other waste matter on the Camarin dumpsite$ The City "overnment went to the *egional Trial Court of Caloocan City to file an action for the declaration of nullity of the cease and desist order and sought to &e declared as the sole authority empowered to promote the health and safety and enhance the right of the people in Caloocan City to a &alanced ecology within its territorial +urisdiction$ LLDA sought to dismiss the complaint, invoking the ,ollution Control Law that the review of cease and desist orders of that nature falls under the Court of Appeals and not the *TC$ *TC denied LLDA-s motion to dismiss, and issued a writ of preliminary in+unction en+oining LLDA from enforcing the cease and desist order during the pendency of the case$ The Court of Appeals promulgated a decision that ruled that the LLDA '"s #o (o)er "#$ "*&'or%&+ &o %ss*e " ,e"se "#$ $es%s& or$er e#-o%#%#. &'e $*m(%#. o/ ."r0".e$ The residents seek a review of the decision$

WoN the LLDA has authority and power to issue an order which, in its nature and effect was injunctive. THEORY OF THE PARTIES City "overnment of Caloocan. As a local government unit, pursuant to the general welfare provision of the Local "overnment Code, they have the mandate to operate a dumpsite and determine the effects to the ecological &alance over its territorial +urisdiction$ LLDA. As an administrative agency which was granted regulatory and ad+udicatory powers and functions &y *A )o$ /#01, it is invested with the power and authority to issue a cease and desist order pursuant to various provisions in E2 )o$ 345$ RULING 6E7$ 8$ LLDA is mandated &y law to manage the environment, preserve the 'uality of human life and ecological systems and prevent undue ecological distur&ances, deterioration and pollution in the Laguna Lake area and surrounding provinces and cities, including Caloocan$ 9hile pollution cases are generally under the ,ollution Ad+udication Board under the Department of Environment and )atural *esources, it does not preclude mandate from special laws that provide another forum$ :n this case, *A )o$ /#01 provides that mandate to the LLDA$ :t is mandated to pass upon or approve or disapprove plans and programs of local government offices and agencies within the region and their underlying environmental;ecological repercussions$ The DE)* even recogni<ed the primary +urisdiction of the LLDA over the case when the DE)* acted as intermediary at a meeting among the representatives of the city government, LLDA and the residents$

4$

LLDA has the authority to issue the cease and desist order$ a$ E=plicit in the law$ >/, par$ ?! e=plicitly authori<es the LLDA to make whatever order may &e necessary in the e=ercise of its +urisdiction$

ISSUE
1

I love Justice Romero. Her decisions are so organised. <3

9hile LLDA was not e=pressly conferred the power @to issue an ex-parte cease and desist orderA in that language, the provision granting authority to @make ( ! orders re'uiring the discontinuance of pollutionA, has the same effect$

:n 83#3, David and Gua<on who purchased David-s unit! filed a complaint in the ELF*B against Fnion Bank and Car East Bank to. o o Allow David and to consign the &alance of the purchase price to &e paid to the &anks Annul the title of the two &anks over David-s condominium praying

&$

)ecessarily implied powers$ Assuming ar"uendo that the cease and desist orderA was not e=pressly conferred &y law, there is +urisprudence enough to the effect$ 9hile it is a fundamental rule that "# "$m%#%s&r"&%ve ".e#,+ '"s o#1+ s*,' (o)er "s e2(ress1+ .r"#&e$ &o %& 0+ 1"), it is likewise a settled rule that "# "$m%#%s&r"&%ve ".e#,+ '"s "1so s*,' (o)ers "s "re #e,ess"r%1+ %m(1%e$ %# &'e e2er,%se o/ %&s e2(ress (o)ers3 2therwise, it will &e reduced to a @toothlessA paper agency$ :n #o$$ution Adjudication %oard vs &ourt of Appea$s, the Court ruled that the ,AB has the power to issue an ex-parte cease and desist order on prima facie evidence of an esta&lishment e=ceeding the allowa&le standards set &y the antiBpollution laws of the country$ LLDA has &een vested with sufficiently &road powers in the regulation of the pro+ects within the Laguna Lake region, and this includes the implementation of relevant antiBpollution laws in the area$

The Banks filed a motion to dismiss and an Answer 'uestioning ELF*B-s +urisdiction ELF*B denied the motion and said that the motion to dismiss will render nugatory the summary nature of proceeding &efore the ELF*B Fnion Bank filed a petition for certiorari alleging the following. o o The complaint should have &een filed in the regular trial courts 7ince the ELF*B was created in 83#8, it has no +urisdiction over contracts that took effect prior to 83#8

ISSUE: 9o) the ELF*B has +urisdiction to hear and decide a condominium &uyer-s complaint for annulment of a real estate mortgage constituted &y the pro+ect owner without his consent and without the prior consent of )EA

DECISION: YES UNION 4ANK v HLUR4 5 Gr%6o7A8*%#o 5 1999 FACTS: :n 835?, (artha David purchased from Cereit *ealty Development C*DC! a condominium unit for ,485D paya&le in %1 e'ual monthly installments :n 835#, C*DC, without David-s knowledge and without prior approval from )EA, mortgaged the condominium pro+ect to Bancom predecessor of Fnion Bank! C*DC failed to pay its o&ligation$ Conse'uently, Bancom foreclosed the mortgaged o& /0 condominium units, including the unit of David The 7heriff issued a certificate of sale in favor Car East Bank since it was the highest &idder 7ec$ ? of ,D 305 vested )EA the EHCLF7:IE +urisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and &usiness while 7ec$ 8# of the same decree prohi&ited the mortgage on any unit &y the owner or developer 9:TE2FT ,*:2* 9*:TTE) A,,*2IAL from )EA 7u&se'uently, ,D 8?// e=panded the +urisdiction of )EA to include the e=clusive +urisdiction to hear and decide cases involving. o o o Fnsound real estate &usiness practices Claims filed &y condominium unit &uyer against the pro+ect developer 7pecific performance of contractual o&ligations filed &y condo &uyers

 E2 %/# transferred the regulatory and 'uasiB+udicial functions of )EA to E7*C Euman 7ettlements *egulatory Commission! and in 83#%, E2 31 changed the name of E7*C to ELF*B :) TE:7 CA7E, C*DC-s act of mortgaging the condominium pro+ect to Bancom without the knowledge and consent of David and without the approval of )EA now ELF*B! was not only an unsound real estate &usiness practice &ut also highly pre+udicial to the &uyer TEF7, the case clearly falls under the +urisdiction of ELF*B The +urisdiction of the ELF*B to regulate the real estate trade is &road enough to include +urisdiction over complaints for specific performance of the sale, or annulment of the mortgage, of a condominium unit with damages

AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE VS3 FACTORAN

2fficial of Gue<on City for violation of the )ational Building Code$ 7u&se'uently, spouses filed a complaint for damages against Am&rosio and ,ere< &efore the *TC$ *espondents 'uestion the +urisdiction of the *TC, contending that the complaint is within the e=clusive +urisdiction of the ELF*B$ The 2ffice of the Building 2fficial of GC found that the &uilding and occupancy permits were validly issued and dismissed the complaint of the 2seas$ *TC granted the damages prayed for &y petitioners and held that respondents deviated from the approved plan$ CA declared *TC-s decision as null and void for lack of +urisdiction as it is the ELF*B that has e=clusive +urisdiction over the complaint for damages$ o The complaint is a necessary offshoot of the alleged violation of the Building Code$ The fact that petitioners filed a separate action for damages instead of including it as an ancillary claim does not divest the ELF*B of its +urisdiction and &ring it within the +urisdiction of regular courts$ o This is a case that necessarily needs a determination of facts, circumstances and incidental matters which the law has specifically &estowed to the ELF*B$

ISSUES, ARGUMENTS ; HELD Ose" v3 Am0ros%o CarpioB(orales, J$ K April 5, 411% 92) ELF*B has e=clusive +urisdiction over the action for damages$ YES, complaints for &reach of contract or specific performance with damages filed &y a su&division lot or condominium unit &uyer against the owner or developer fall under the e=clusive +urisdiction of the ELF*B$

FACTS :n June 8338, ,etitioner Edmundo 2sea and respondent Antonio Am&rosio Am&rosio! entered into a Contract to 7ell a @Eouse and Lot FnitA in a su&division$ :n )ovem&er 8338, Edmundo and Am&orsio forged a Deed of 7ale, where Edmundo agreed to &uy the same house and lot su&+ect of the Contract to 7ell$ :n accordance with the @package dealA provided in the Contract to 7ell, coB respondent *odolfo ,ere< was contracted &y Am&rosio to construct the house of petitioner spouses with the specifications in the Contract to 7ell, Bill of (aterials and Approved Building ,lan &y the Building 2fficial of Gue<on City$ The house was completed on August 8338 and the spouses occupied it$ A month later, its front and &ack walls cracked$ Am&rosio claimed that the cracks were mere hairline defects in the @pa$itadaA and filled them up with cement$ ,etitioner Ligaya 2sea lodged a complaint with the 2ffice of the Building ,etitioners contend that their action for damages is not 'ased on the deviation from the approved su&division plan$ The complaint for damages alleged a &reach of contract, for failure to comply with the &uilding plans, which is a violation of the Civil Code$

*espondents argue that ELF*B has e=clusive +urisdiction as the controversy arose contracts from contracts &etween the su&division developer and house and lot &uyer$

RATIONALE "enerally, the e=tent to which an administrative agency may e=ercise its powers depends largely, if not wholly, on the provisions of the statute creating

or empowering such agency$ ,D )o$ 8?// grants to the ELF*B +urisdiction in cases of. a! Fnsound real estate &usiness practicesL &! Claims filed &y su&division lot or condominium unit &uyer against the developerL and c! Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory o&ligations filed &y &uyers of su&division lots against the developer$ ,D )o$ 305 provides that the ELF*B shall have e=clusive +urisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and &usiness$ E2 )o$ 31 names ELF*B as the sole and regulatory &oard for housing$ The &usiness of developing su&divisions &eing im&ued with pu&lic interest and welfare, any 'uestion arising from the e=ercise of that prerogative should &e &rought to the ELF*B, which has the technical knowBhow on the matter$ :n the e=ercise of its powers, the ELF*B must commonly interpret and apply contracts and determine the rights of private parties under such contracts$ This ancillary power is no longer a uni'uely +udicial function, e=ercisa&le only &y the regular courts$ :n &.(. (orres v. )i'ionada, 7C affirmed the competence of ELF*B to award damages although this is an essentially +udicial power e=ercisa&le only &y courts of +ustice$ Fnder the $o,&r%#e o/ (r%m"r+ "$m%#%s&r"&%ve -*r%s$%,&%o# , courts cannot or will not determine a controversy where the issues for resolution demand the e=ercise of sound administrative discretion re'uiring the special knowledge, e=perience, and services of the administrative tri&unal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact$ ELF*B has the e=pertise to determine the &asic technical issue of whether the alleged deviations from the &uilding plans and the technical specifications affect the soundness and structural strength of the house$ ,etitioners attempt to separate their rights to the lot, which they admit is within ELF*B +urisdiction, and their rights to the house &uilt on the lot, which they allege is enforcea&le in regular courts$ Both the Contract to 7ell and Deed of 7ale involve the sale and purchase of the @house and lot unit$A There is a clear intent &y the parties that the house "#$ lot &e treated as the single o&+ect of their contracts$ Allowing the splitting of a single cause of action would result in duplicity of suits and possi&le conflicting findings &y 4 tri&unals on the same claim$

Iss*e

private respondent Edgar 7ta$ (aria, then "eneral (anager$ 7ta$ (aria was then placed under preventive suspension and 7an Diego was designated in his place$ 7ta$ (aria was later dismissed on January 5, 833?$ January 8#, 833? M private respondent filed a 7pecial Civil Action for Guo 9arranto and (andamus with preliminary in+unction &efore the *TC$ ,etitioner moved to dismiss the case on 4 grounds. o Court had no +urisdiction over disciplinary actions of government employees which is vested e=clusively in the Civil 7ervice Comission o Guo warranto was not the proper remedy (otion to dismiss and (C* dismissed$ CA likewise dismissed petition and denied petitioner-s (C*$

MATEO V3 CA August 8/, 8330 K J$ ,uno F",&s Fpon complaint of some (orong 9ater District (29AD! employees, petitioners, all Board (em&ers of (29AD, conducted an investigation on

<oN &'e RTC o/ R%="1 '"s -*r%s$%,&%o# over ,"ses %#vo1v%#. $%sm%ss"1 o/ "# em(1o+ee o/ " 8*"s%7(*01%, ,or(or"&%o#3 NO R"&%o (29AD is a 'uasiBpu&lic corporation created pursuant to ,D 83# ,rovincial 9ater Ftilities Act of 835?!$ D"v"o C%&+ <"&er D%s&r%,& v3 CSC: employees of governmentBowned or controlled corporations with original charter fall under the +urisdiction of the C7C$ The esta&lished rule is that the hiring and firing of employees of "2CCs are governed &y the provisions of the Civil 7ervice Law and *ules and *egulations$ ,D #15, E2 434 and *ule ::, 7ec8 of (emorandum Circular )o$ // series of 8331 of the C7C categorically provide that the party aggrieved &y a decision, ruling, order, or action of an agency of the government involving termination of services may appeal to the Commission within 80 days$ Thereafter, private respondent could go on certiorari to this Court under *ule %0 of the *oC if he still feels aggrieved &y the ruling of the C7C$ M"#,%&" v3 4"r,%#"s: The C7C, under the constitution, is the single ar&iter of all contests relating to the civil service, and as such, its +udgments are unappeala&le and su&+ect only to the 7C-s certiorari +udgment$ (ancita however no longer governs for under the present rule, final resolutions of the C7C shall &e appeala&le to the CA$ :n any event, whether under the old rule or the present rule, *TCs have no +urisdiction to entertain cases involving dismissal of officers and employees covered &y the Civil 7ervice Law$ PAL v3 C%v%1 Aero#"*&%,s 4o"r$ (CA4! Torres Jr, 8335! CACT7.

,rivate *espondent "randair applied for a Certificate of ,u&lic Convenience and )ecessity with the Board$ Accordingly, the Chief Eearing 2fficer of the CAB issued a )otice of Eearing setting the application for initial hearing and directing "randAir to serve a copy of the application and notice to all scheduled ,hilippine Domestic operators$ "randAir filed its Compliance, and re'uested for the issuance of a Temporary 2perating ,ermit ,etitioner ,AL filed an 2pposition to the application for a Certificate of ,u&lic Convenience and )ecessity with one of the grounds as. 8! CAB has no +urisdiction to hear his application until the latter has first o&tained a franchise to operate from Congress &ut the CAB Chief 2perating 2fficer denied the opposition ,etitioner ,AL then opposed private respondentNs application for a temporary permit since applicant didnNt possess the re'uired fitness and capa&ility and applicant has failed to prove that thereNs a clear and urgent pu&lic need for the services applied for The Board approved the issuance of a Temporary 2perating ,ermit for a period of ? months and it +ustified its assumption of +urisdiction over "randAirNs application upon motion &y private respondent "randAir, the temporary permit was e=tended for % months Thus, this petition where petitioner ,AL argues that respondent %oard acted 'eyond its powers and jurisdiction in takin" co"ni*ance of +randAir,s app$ication for the issuance of a &ertificate of #u'$ic &onvenience and Necessity and in issuin" a temporary permit since +randAir didn,t have a $e"is$ative franchise to en"a"e in schedu$ed domestic air transportation- a $e"is$ative franchise may on$y 'e "ranted 'y &on"ress as espoused in .ec. //, Art. /0 and .ec. /, Art. 1 of &onsti0. *espondent "randAir re$ies on its interpretation of 2A 331 which fo$$ows the pronouncements of the &A in Avia 4i$ipinas v &A% and .i$an"an Airways v +rand 5nt,$ Airways where &A uphe$d the authority of the %oard to issue such authority in the a'sence of a $e"is$ative franchise which authority is derived from .ec /6 2A 331

*AT:2.

8$

CAB has +urisdiction over "randAirNs Application for a Temporary 2perating ,ermit$ :n #AL v. &A% (/<1=!, it was esta&lished that *A 55% e=pressly authori<ed the Board to issue a temporary operating permit or Certificate of ,u&lic Convenience and )ecessity$ T'e CA4>s "*&'or%&+ &o.r"#& " &em(or"r+ (erm%& *(o# %&s o)# %#%&%"&%ve s&ro#.1+ s*..es&s &'e (o)er &o e2er,%se s"%$ "*&'or%&+, eve# 0e/ore &'e (rese#&"&%o# o/ ev%$e#,e3 Assuming arguendo that a legislative franchise is a prere'uisite to the issuance of a permit, %&s "0se#,e $oes#>& "//e,& &'e -*r%s$%,&%o# o/ &'e 4o"r$ &o 'e"r &'e "((1%,"&%o#, 0*& &o11s o#1+ *(o# &'e *1&%m"&e %ss*"#,e o/ &'e re8*es&e$ (erm%&3

The power to authori<e and control the operation of a pu&lic utility is a prerogative of the legislature$ Eowever, Congress has granted administrative agencies the power to grant licenses for, or to authori<e the operation of certain pu&lic utilities$ I& %s .e#er"11+ re,o.#%=e$ &'"& " /r"#,'%se m"+ 0e $er%ve$ %#$%re,&1+ /rom &'e s&"&e &'ro*.' " $*1+ $es%.#"&e$ ".e#,+, "#$ &o &'%s e2&e#&, &'e (o)er &o .r"#& /r"#,'%ses '"s /re8*e#&1+ 0ee# $e1e."&e$, eve# &o ".e#,%es o&'er &'"# &'ose o/ " 1e.%s1"&%ve #"&*re3 9ith this, privileges conferred &y grant &y local authorities as agents of the state constitute as much a legislative franchise as though the grant had &een made &y an act of the Legislature$

:77FE7. /. 0. WoN &A% has jurisdiction over +randAir,s App$ication for a (emporary 7peratin" #ermit8 9:. WoN a $e"is$ative franchise is an a'so$ute re;uirement for the %oard to have authority to issue &ertificates of #u'$ic &onvenience and Necessity8 N7

The trend of modern legislation is to vest the ,u&lic 7ervice Commissioner with the power to regulate and control the operation of pu&lic services under reasona&le rules and regulations and as a general rule, Courts will not interfere with the e=ercise of that discretion when it is +ust and reasona&le and founded upon a legal right$ Thus, &'e CA4 '"s &'e "*&'or%&+ &o %ss*e " Cer&%/%,"&e o/ P*01%, Co#ve#%e#,e "#$ Ne,ess%&+ or Tem(or"r+ O(er"&%#. Perm%& &o " $omes&%, "%r &r"#s(or& o(er"&or )'o, &'o*.' #o& (ossess%#. " 1e.%s1"&%ve /r"#,'%se, mee&s "11 &'e o&'er re8*%reme#&s (res,r%0e$ 0+ 1")3

See page 546 footnote of case

Congress, &y giving CAB the power to issue permits, has delegated to the &ody the authority to determine the capa&ility and competence of a prospective domestic air transport operator to engage in such venture$ Co#.ress '"s se& s(e,%/%, 1%m%&"&%o#s o# 'o) s*,' "*&'or%&+ s'o*1$ 0e e2er,%se$ %# RA ??@

0+ s(e,%/+%#. &'e re8*%reme#&s &o $e&erm%#e &'e ,om(e&e#,+ o/ " (ros(e,&%ve o(er"&or &o e#.".e %# &'e (*01%, serv%,e o/ "%r &r"#s(or&"&%o# "#$ &'e (ro,e$*re /or &'e (ro,ess%#. o/ "((1%,"&%o# o/ " Cer&%/%,"&e o/ P*01%, Co#ve#%e#,e "#$ Ne,ess%&+3

2. ThereNs nothing in the law nor in the Constitution that indicates that a legislative
franchise is an indispensa&le re'uirement for an entity to operate as a domestic air transport operator$ Although 7ec$ 88 of Art$ 84 recogni<es CongressN control over any franchise certificate or authority to operate a pu&lic utility, it doesnNt mean Congress has e=clusive authority to issue the same$ :n 7ec$ 81?, Congress intended to delegate the authority to regulate the issuance of a license to operate domestic air transport services$ #etitioner #AL ar"ues that a &ertificate of #u'$ic &onvenience and Necessity is issued to a pu'$ic service for which a franchise is re;uired 'y $aw as distin"uished from a >&ertificate of #u'$ic &onvenience? which is an authori*ation issued for the operation of pu'$ic services for which no franchise is re;uired 'y $aw. -

implementation of the 83#5 Ca&inet ,olicy *eforms in the ,ower 7ector, praying specificaly that the direct supply of power to industries within its franchise area i$e$ A(:! &e discontinued &y )apocor$ The Ca&inet ,olicy *eforms provides, in part. o @Continue direct connectionsOuntil such time as the appropriate regulatory &oard determines that direct connetion of industry to )apocor is no longer necessary in the franchise areaO$with satisfactory guarantees of nonBpre+udice to industries$$A :n its petition, :ligan alleged that it can meet, even surpass the set of financial standards adopted &y the E*B pursuant to the policy guidelines set &y the Ca&inet$ A(: filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the following grounds. o L",A o/ -*r%s$%,&%o# o# &'e ("r& o/ ER4 &o 'e"r &'e (e&%&%o# o Cailure to state a cause of action o )onB+oinder of indispensa&le parties CA held that the core of the issue is related to the distri&ution and marketing of energy resources and is hence within the +urisdiction of the Department of Energy, pursuant to *A 5%?#$

The Court said that the terms @convenience and necessity,A if used together in a statute, are usually construed together$ ,u&lic convenience and necessity e=ists when the proposed facility will meet a reasona&le want of the pu&lic and supply a need which the e=isting facilities do not ade'uately afford$ :t doesnNt mean or re'uire an actual physical necessity or an indispensa&le thing$ :t is the law which determines the re'uisites for the issuance of the certification and not the title indicating the certificate$

:77FE. - 92) the E*B has +urisdiction to hear and decide cases involving direct connection issues$ o :ligan claims that *A 5%?# transferred to the D2E E*B-s nonBprice regulatory powers and functions relative to the petroleum industry$ This argument was founded on the definition of ener"y source under the act$ EELD. - )2$ ,ursuant to *A 5%?#, it is now the Department of Energy D2E! that has +urisdiction$ *AT:2. - The court cited the consolidated cases 8! )A,2C2* vs$ CA and Cagayan Electric ,ower and 4! ,hividec :ndustrial Authority vs$ CA and Cagayan Electric ,ower, where it was held that. o The determination of which of the two pu&lic utilities has the right to supply electric power to an area which is within the coverage of &oth is certainly not a rateBfi=ing function which should remain with the E*B$ :t deals with the regulation of the distri&ution of energy resources, which under E2 854 is a function of E*B$ Eowever, with the enactment of *A 5%?#, the D2E took over such functions$ - :t is now the D2E that has +urisdiction over the regulation of the marketing and the distri&ution of energy resources$ Although formerly &elonging to the E*B, *A 5%?# transferred the nonBrateBfi=ing +urisdiction power and functions of the E*B to the

ER4 vs3 Co*r& o/ A((e"1s ,angani&an, J$ K (arch 40, 8333 CACT7. - The mem&ers of the Association of (indanao :ndustries A(:! are enterprises which were among those granted direct connection facility &y the )ational ,ower Corporation )apocor! although operating within the franchise area of :ligan Light and ,ower, :nc$ :ligan!$ - :ligan filed with the Energy *egulatory Board E*B! a petition for the
3

See page 551 for the provision

D2E$ The application for the ),C-s direct supply or disconnection of power involve essentially the distri&ution of energy resources, and not &y any incident, the determination of power rates$ Eence, these applications must &e resolved &y the D2E$ Also, the argument that electricity is not an energy resource is wrong$ E2 854 provides that. o Energy *esource is defined as any su&stance or phenomenn which &y itself or in com&ination with othersOemanates, or generatesOenergy$ o Electric power or electricity is defined as an impondera&le and invisi&le agent producing light, hear, chemical decomposition, and other physical phenomena$ Fndou&tedly, therefore, electricity, which produces energy, is an energy resource$ The regulation of its distri&ution is, therefore, among those functions formerly &elonging to the E*B, which have &een transferred to the D2E$

ISSUE: 9hether or not the regular courts have +urisdiction over intraBcorporate controversies$ HELD: NO3 E:"C has original and e=clusive +urisdiction over intraBcorporate controversies$ The +urisdiction of the 7EC over intraBcorporate matters concerning homeowners association including their dissolution as found in ,$D 314BA has &een transferred to the Eome :nsurance and "uarantee Corporation$ 9hatever am&iguities that may arise regarding +urisdiction over 'uo warranto action against corporation or person usurping corporate offices are classified and resolved &y the 8335 *ules of Civil ,rocedure, as amended$ Guo 9arranto actions against corporation or person using corporate offices fall under the +urisdiction of 7EC, unless otherwise provided for &y law, such as where the corporate entities involved are homeowners associations, in which case +urisdiction is lodged with the Eome :nsurance and "uarantee Corporation E:"C!$

UNILONGO VS CA April 5, 1999; Kapunan, J.

De1&"ve#&*res Reso*r,es, I#,3 v3 C"0"&o K Guisum&ing,J$ FACTS LA 2legario rendered a decision finding that the la&orers of "reen (ountain Carms had &een illegally dismissed and that "reen (ountain Carms, et al$ were guilty of Fnfair La&or ,ractice$ The la&orers filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of e=ecution &efore the )L*C$ LA *ivera issued a writ of e=ecution, directing Deputy 7heriff Ientura to e=ecute the +udgment against "reen (ountain Carms, et al$ o 7hreiff Ientura proceeded to garnish personal properties of "reen (ountain Carms, et al$, which were found to &e insufficient to satisfy the monetary award$ o 7heriff Ientura proceeded to levy upon a real property, registered in the name of *o&erto 2ngpin, one of the respondents$ Deltaventures *esources, :nc$ filed a &'%r$7("r&+ ,1"%m 0e/ore &'e NLRC, asserting ownership over the property levied$ o LA *ivera ordered the suspension of the auction sale until the merits of petitionerNs claim has &een resolved$ Eowever, Deltaventures /%1e$ " ,om(1"%#& /or %#-*#,&%o# "#$ $"m".es with prayer for the issuance of a temporary retraining order against the 7heriff on the same grounds as the thirdBparty claim! with the Re.%o#"1 Tr%"1 Co*r&$ o Deltaventures filed an amended complaint to implead LA *ivera and the la&orers of "reen (ountain Carms$ La&orers of "reen (ountain Carms moved for the dismissal of the civil case on the ground of the lack or +urisdiction of the *TCQ"*A)TED$

FACTS: 7to$ )ino de Cul de 7ac )eigh&orhood Association :nc$ 7)7)A:! was incorporated and registered with the 7ecurities P E=change Commission 7EC! &y petitioners Fnilongo "roup, comprising them as the original Board of Trustees$ Eowever, since no elections for a new Board of Trustees and for a new set of officers were held from the time of its incorporation, the petitioners su&se'uently amended the 7)7)ANs &yB laws &y changing the term of office of the Board of Trustees from 8yr to 4 yrs$ Despite amendments, elections were held &y private respondents Dino "roup, from where they emerged as the new officers$ Then again, the Fnilongo group esta&lished 7to$ )ino de Cul de 7ac Eomeowners Association :nc$ CE7EA! and registered the same with the Eome :nsurance "uarantee Corporation E:"C!$ Crom this arise the controversy on who should represent the homeowners and hold the offices and positions therefrom$ ,rivate respondents, in their 'uo warranto complaints, sought to ouster the Fnilongo group from the Board of Trustees of the 7)7)A: and to dissolve the CD7EA and declare its registration with the E:"C null and void for &eing in contravention of law and illegally formed$ :n response, two pleadings, an answer with counterclaim and a motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of +urisdiction over the su&+ect matter, were filed &y petitioners$ They contended that disputes involving homeowners association fall under the e=clusive +urisdiction of the E:"C$ The motion to dismiss was denied$ Dissatisfied, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohi&ition with the Court of Appeals, which was again denied for lack of merit$ 2n appeal, petitioners contended that the regular courts have no +urisdiction over intraBcorporate controversies$

ISSUE <oN &'e RTC m"+ &"Ae ,o.#%="#,e o/ &'e ,om(1"%#& /%1e$ 0+ De1&"ve#&*res "#$ ,o#se8*e#&1+ (rov%$e &'e %#-*#,&%o# re1%e/ so*.'&3BNO. 7tated differently, 9o) the acts complained of are related to, connected or interwoven with the cases falling under the e=clusive +urisdiction of the La&or ar&iter or the )L*C$Q9:.. RATIO The thirdBparty claim was filed &y Deltaventures &y reason of a writ of e=ecution to enforce the )L*C-s decision issued &y 7heriff Ientura against a property to which it claims ownership$ o And although the complaint &efore the *TC was for the recovery of possession and in+unction, in essence it was "# ",&%o# ,'"11e#.%#. &'e 1e."1%&+ or (ro(r%e&+ o/ &'e 1ev+ , and was, in effect " mo&%o# &o 8*"s' &'e )r%& o/ e2e,*&%o# of a decision rendered on a case of :llegal Dismissal and Fnfair La&or ,ractice, which was properly within the +urisdiction of the La&or Ar&iter$ o And as the su&+ect matter of the third party claim is &ut an incident of the la&or case, such is a matter &eyond the +urisdiction of the *TC$ (oreover, since the +urisdiction to try such cases pertained e=clusively to the proper la&or official concerned under the Department of La&or and Employment i$e$, the )L*C!, to hold otherwise would &e to sanction s(1%& -*r%s$%,&%o# which is o&no=ious to the orderly administration of +ustice$ C*r%s$%,&%o# o#,e ",8*%re$ %s #o& 1os& *(o# &'e %#s&"#,e o/ &'e ("r&%es 0*& ,o#&%#*es *#&%1 &'e ,"se %s &erm%#"&e$3 o 9hatever irregularities attended the issuance and e=ecution of the a$ias writ of e=ecution should &e referred to the same administrative tri&unal which rendered the decision &ecause "#+ ,o*r& )'%,' %ss*e$ " )r%& o/ e2e,*&%o# '"s &'e %#'ere#& (o)er &o ,orre,& errors o/ %&s m%#%s&er%"1 o//%,ers "#$ &o ,o#&ro1 %&s o)# (ro,esses3 o The power of the La&or Ar&iter to issue a writ of e=ecution carries with it the power to in'uire into the correctness of the e=ecution of his decision and to consider whatever supervening events might transpire during such e=ecution$ Cinally, the in+unction cannot prosper under Ar&%,1e 9D , which e=plicitly (ro'%0%&s issuance of a temporary or permanent %#-*#,&%o# or res&r"%#%#. or$er %# "#+ ,"se %#vo1v%#. or .ro)%#. o*& o/ 1"0or $%s(*&es &y any court or other entity$ o ,etitioner should have filed its thirdBparty claim &efore the La&or Ar&iter, from whom the writ of e=ecution originated, &efore instituting said civil case$ (oreover, the *TC, &eing a ,o7e8*"1 0o$+ of the )L*C, '"s #o -*r%s$%,&%o#

&o %ss*e "#+ res&r"%#%#. or$er or %#-*#,&%o# &o e#-o%# &'e e2e,*&%o# o/ "#+ $e,%s%o# o/ &'e 1"&&er3 9? DISPOSITIVE The order of dismissal &y Judge Ca&ato are ACC:*(ED, and the records of this case are here&y *E(A)DED to the )L*C for further proceedings$ /@wphi/.nAt C"."+"# E1e,&r%, Po)er vs3 Co11er" K ,ardo, J$ 4111! FACTS B *espondents were customers of petitioner Cagayan Electric ,ower and Light Company, :nc$ B 7ince 8355, petitioner had &een collecting payments for electric consumption from respondents under the soBcalled ,ower Ad+ustment Clause without deducting the discounts and other credit ad+ustments granted &y the )ational ,ower Corporation$ B :n 83#0, respondents tendered payments for their individual &ills less charges for power cost ad+ustment, currency e=change rate ad+ustment and surcharge, which petitioner refused to accept$ Because of petitioner-s refusal, respondents consigned their payments to the court$ B *espondents filed with the *TC a complaint against petitioner for un+ust enrichment, recovery of sums of money$ B *TC dismissed the complaint on the ground that the court had no +urisdiction over the su&+ect matter of the complaint which was within the +urisdiction of the Board of Energy, now the Energy *egulatory Board E*B! under 7ection 3 c!, ,D 841%$ B CA reversed the trial court, and remanded the case$

ISSUEES ; HELD: 9hether +urisdiction over the su&+ect matter of the complaint is vested with regular courts or the Energy *egulatory Board$ *TC$

RATIONALE B The complaint does not charge any violation of either currency e=change rate ad+ustment CE*A! or power cost ad+ustment ,CA!$ *espondents only allege that

petitioner charged them with the full rate of electric consumption despite a&sence of any increases in the cost of energy$ B The regional trial court is a court of general +urisdiction$ 2n the other hand, *epu&lic Act )o$ %85?, as amended &y ,residential Decree )o$ 841% empowered the E*B to regulate and fi= the power rates to &e charged &y electric companies$ The power to fi= rates of electric consumption does not carry with it the power to determine whether or not petitioner is guilty of overcharging customers for consumption of electric power$ This falls within the +urisdiction of the regular courts$ B 9e have ruled that the 'uestion of determining the &reakdown and itemi<ation of the power ad+ustment &illed &y an electric power company to its customers is not a matter that pertains to the E*B-s +urisdiction, &ut that of the *TC$ B ,etitioner is a pu&lic utility company$ :f, indeed, petitioner used the deposits, discounts, surcharges, ,CA, and CE*A rates as instruments to o&tain undue profits, then respondents may have causes of action against petitioner to &e litigated &efore the regular courts and decided on the &asis of evidence which the parties may present during the trial$

The incum&ent officers;mem&ers of the &oard of director 'uestioned the order and resolution which were issued on separate occasion! with the ordinary courts$ :nvesta Land Corporation, who was dealing with DA*BC: that time, also filed a complaint to en+oin the CDA from enforcing its orders$ 9hile the cases were pending, the mem&ers of DA*BC:, on their own initiative, convened a general assem&ly and held an election effectively replacing the private respondents the complained officers!$ The Court of Appeals, however, promulgated a decision on the case for prohi&ition, ordering the CDA to perpetually cease and desist from the case and reinstating the mem&ers of the &oard of directors who were ousted &y virtue of the 'uestioned 2rders$ (otion for *econsideration was denied, instant petition to the 7upreme Court$

ISSUE Whether or not the &ooperative Deve$opment Authority is vested with ;uasi-judicia$ authority to adjudicate intra-cooperative disputes. RULING )o, the CDA is devoid of any 'uasiB+udicial authority to ad+udicate intraBcooperative disputes and more particularly disputes as regards the election of the mem&ers of the Board of Directors and officers of cooperatives$ The authority to conduct hearings or in'uiries and the power to hold any person in contempt may &e e=ercised &y the CDA only in the performance of its administrative functions under *A )o$ %3?3$ The CDA invokes the power vested &y >? of *epu&lic Act )o$ %3?3 the ena&ling charter of the CDA!$ Eowever, after e=amination of all the powers, functions, and responsi&ilities enumerated in the section, there is no provision providing for such ad+udicative powers$ o The language of *A )o$ %3?3 provides for purely administrative functions which consist of policyBmaking, registration, fiscal and technical assistance to cooperatives and implementation of cooperative laws$ No)'ere %# &'e s"%$ 1") ,"# %& 0e /o*#$ "#+ e2(ress .r"#& &o &'e CDA o/ "*&'or%&+ &o "$-*$%,"&e ,oo(er"&%ve $%s(*&es3

ARRANFA vs3 4F Homes

COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs DOLEFIL AGRARIAN REFORM 4ENEFICIARIES COOPERATIVE, INC3 De Leon, 4114! FACTS The Cooperative Development Authority CDA! received complaints from disgruntled mem&ers of the Dolefil Agrarian *eform Beneficiaries Cooperative, :nc$ DA*BC:!, an agrarian reform cooperative, alleging the mismanagement and;or misappropriation of funds of DA*BC:-s incum&ent officers and mem&ers of the &oard of directors$ :n response to these complaints, CDA issued. 8$ 4$ An order free<ing the funds of DA*BC: and creating a management committee to manage the affairs of said cooperative$ A resolution directing the holding of a special general assem&ly of the mem&ers of DA*BC: and the creation of an ad hoc election committee to supervise the election of officers and mem&ers of the &oard of directors$

At most, it could facilitate mediation and conciliation of disputes, and ># of the same Act e=pressly states that if no mediation or conciliation succeeds within three ?! months, a certificate of nonBresolution shall &e issued &y the commission prior to the

filing of appropriate action &efore the proper courts$ Being an administrative agency, the CDA has only powers as are e=pressly granted to it &y law and those which are necessarily implied in the e=ercise thereof$ Looking into the legislative records of deli&erations for the said act, it is clear that the Congressmen intended the ordinary courts to resolve disputes &etween cooperatives$ o This is in line with the policy of government granting autonomy to cooperatives and minimising intervention in their own disputes that-s why they encourage conciliation and mediation!$

10