SAMAR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, COOPERATIVE, INC. (SAMELCO (SAMELCO II) AND ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, DIRECTORS, composed of DEBORAH T. MARCO (Immedi!e (Immedi!e Ps! P"eside#!), P"eside#!), ATT$. MEDINO L. AC%BA, EN&R. MAN%EL C. ORE'OLA, ALFONSO F. %ILAPIO, RA%L DE &%MAN #d PONCIANO R. ROSALES (&e#e"* M#+e" #d E OfficioDi"ec!o") vs. ANANIAS D. SEL%DO, 'R. &.R. No. -/012, Ap"i* 34, 32-3 FACTS: Private respondent, Ananias D. Seludo, Jr., a member of the Board of Directors (BOD) of the petitioner Samar II lectric !ooperative, Inc. (SA"#!O II), an electric cooperative providin$ electric service to all members%consumers in all municipalities &ithin the Second !on$ressional District of the Province of Samar filed an 'r$ent Petition in the e$ional rial !ourt (!) in !albi$a, Samar for prohibition a$ainst petitioner SA"#!O II for passin$ the esolution *o. + Series- of //+ &hich disallo&ed him to attend succeedin$ meetin$s of the BOD effective 0ebruar1 //+ until the end of his term as director. he same resolution also dis2ualified him for one (3) term to run as a candidate for director in the upcomin$ district elections. In his petition, private respondent pra1ed for the nullification of esolution *o. +, Series- of //+, contendin$ that it &as issued &ithout an1 le$al and factual bases. In their ans&er to the petition for prohibition, individual petitioners raised the affirmative defense of lac4 of 5urisdicti 5urisdiction on of the ! over the sub5ect sub5ect matter of the case. Individua Individuall petitioners petitioners assert that, since the matter involved an electric cooperative, SA"#!O II, primar1 5urisdiction is vested on the *ational lectrification Administration Administration (*A). ISSUE: 6hether ISSUE: 6hether or not the *A &as $ranted the po&er to hear and decide cases involvin$ the validit1 of board resolutions and &hether or not *A has primar1 5urisdiction over the th e 2uestion of the validit1 of the Board esolution issued b1 SA"#!O II. HELD: HELD: 7es. !itin$ the provisions of P.D. *os. 89 and 38:+, the *A is empo&ered to determine the validit1 of resolutions passed b1 electric cooperatives. Section 3/, !hapter II of P.D. *o. 89, as amended b1 Section + of P.D. *o. 38:+, provides that the *A is empo&ered to issue issue orders orders,, rules rules and re$ulat re$ulation ionss and motu proprio upon petitio petition n of third third partie parties, s, to proprio or upon conduct investi$ations, referenda and other similar actions in all matters affectin$ said electric cooperatives and other borro&er, or supervised or controlled entities. A clear proof of such e;panded po&ers is that, unli4e P.D. *o. 89, P.D. *o. 38:+ e;pressl1 prov provid ides es for for the the auth author orit it1 1 of the the *A *A to e;er e;erci cise se supe superv rvis isio ion n and and cont contro roll over over elec electr tric ic cooperatives. In administrative la&, supervision means overseein$ or the po&er or authorit1 of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fail or ne$lect to fulfill them, the former ma1 ta4e such action or step as prescribed b1 la& to ma4e them perform their duties. !ontrol, on the other hand, means the po&er of an officer to alter or modif1 or nullif1 or set aside &hat a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute substitute the 5ud$ment of the former for that of the latter. latter. Section Section <= (3), !hapter !hapter >, Boo4 : of ;ecutive Order *o. 9, other&ise 4no&n as the Administrative !ode of 39=> provides, thus? Supervision and control shall include the authorit1 to act directl1 &henever a specific function is entrusted b1 la& or re$ulation to a subordinate@ direct the performance of dut1@ restrain the commis commissio sion n of acts acts @ review review,, approve approve,, revers reverse e or modify modify acts acts and decis decision ions s of s!ordinate officia"s or nits@ nits @ determine priorities in the e;ecution of plans and pro$rams@ and prescribe standards, $uidelines, plans and pro$rams. he *A has primar1 5urisdiction over the 2uestion of the validit1 of the Board esolution issued b1 SA"#!O II. A careful readin$ of the provisions of P.D. *o. 38:+ clearl1 sho& that, pursuant to its po&er of supervision and control, the *A is $ranted the authorit1 to conduct investi$ations and other similar actions as &ell as to issue orders, rules and re$ulations &ith respect to all matters affectin$ electric cooperatives. !ertainl1, the matter as to the validit1 of the resolu resolutio tion n issued issued b1 the Board Board of Direct Directors ors of SA"#! SA"#!O O II, II, &hich &hich practi practical call1 l1 removed removed respondent from his position as a member of the Board of Directors and further dis2ualified him to run as such in the ensuin$ election, is a matter &hich affects the said electric cooperative and, thus, comes &ithin the ambit of the po&ers of the *A as e;pressed in Sections + and > of P.D. *o. 38:+. Based on the fore$oin$ discussions, the necessar1 conclusion that can be arrived at is that, &hile the ! has 5urisdiction over the petition for prohibition filed b1 respondent, the *A, *A, in the e;erci e;ercise se of its po&er of superv supervisi ision on and control, control, has primar1 primar1 5urisd 5urisdict iction ion to determine the issue of the validit1 of the sub5ect resolution.
