SAMAR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (SAMELCO II) v. SELUDO, JR.

,
G.R. No. 173840
April 25, 2012

Facts:
Respondent Seludo is a member of SAMELCO II’s BOD. A board resolution was issued disallowing
respondent from attending meetings of the BOD effective February 2005 until the end of his term as
directed and disqualified him for one term to run as candidate for director in the upcoming district
elections. Respondent then filed an Urgent Petition for Prohibition against SAMELCO II with the RTC in
Calbiga, Samar. RTC granted a TRO in favour of Seludo effective for 72 hours and later extended for
another 17 days. Petitioners then raised an affirmative defense of lack of lack of jurisdiction of RTC over
subject matter, the same being with the National Electrification Administration (NEA). RTC sustained its
jurisdiction over the matter, motion for reconsideration was denied. CA affirmed the RTC. .

ISSUE:

Does the NEA have primary jurisdiction over the question of the validity of the Board Resolution issued
by SAMELCO II?

RULING:

Yes, pursuant to Subsection (a), Sec. 24, Chapter III of PD 269 as amended by Sec. 7, PD 1645 clearly
shows that, pursuant to its power of supervision and control, NEA is granted the authority to conduct
investigations and other similar actions as well as to issue orders, rules and regulations with respect to
all matters affecting electric cooperatives. In addition, while the RTC has jurisdiction over the petition
for prohibition, the NEA, in its exercise of its power of supervision and control, has primary jurisdiction
to determine the issue of the validity of the subject resolution. Petition granted.