Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Prepared by:
Elva A. Aban
Submitted to:
Judge Michelia O.
Capadocia
GR No 176935-36
1. Citation
The name of the cases are:
ZAMECO (Zambales II Electric Cooperative, Inc.)
Board of Directors vs. CASCONA (Castillejos Consumers
Association Inc.)
And
ZAMECO (Zambales II Electric Cooperative, Inc.)
Board of Directors vs. NEA (National Electrification
Administration), NEA-Office of the administrative
committee.
The Supreme Court decided this case on October 4,
2006 and its resolution on March 13, 2007.
Terms and definitions:
a. ZAMECO II as petitioners an electric cooperative
organized and registered under Presidential
Decree No. 269
b. NEA as respondents a government own and
controlled corporation organized under PD No. 269
and amended by PD No. 1645
c. CASCONA as respondents an organization of
electric consumers from the municipality of
Castillejos, Zambales under the coverage area of
ZAMECO II
2. Facts
CASCONA filed a letter of complaint to NEA seeking the
removal of petitioners with the alleged offenses:
1. Illegal payment of 13th month and excessive mid
year bonus
2. Excessive expenses of the board president i.e.
charged to ZPC (ZAMECO Power Corporation)
and CLPTDC (Central Luzon Power Transmission
Development Corporation) and treated as
receivables by the ZAMECO II from the
corporations aforementioned
2
3. Anomalous
contract
with
PMC
(Philreca
Management Corporation) for ZAMECO IIs
System Loss Reduction Program
4. Overstaying as members of the board
The lettercomplaint submitted by the Manager of the
Coop Systems Audit Division to the NEA was based on
the 1998 audit report.
Arguments:
ZAMECO:
1. NEAs jurisdiction to supervise and control over
electric cooperatives has been revoked by the EPIRA
(Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001) where it
was ordered that all outstanding financial obligations
of
all electric cooperatives will be assumed by
PSALM (Power Sector Assets and Liabilities
Management Corporation).
2. ZAMECO II has been registered with CDA
(Cooperative Development Authority) on December
2007 where it ousted NEA of its jurisdiction.
3. They were denied of due process as the NEA failed to
notify them of charges based on 2003 audit (not part
of the letter complaint)
4. NEA does not have the authority to hear electionrelated cases.
CASCONA:
1. Alleged that the audit report in 2003 contains the
issues raised in 1998.
2. Argues that the election related matter was an
administrative case since there was no election
scheduled hence negates the assertion of preelection protest.
3. The respondents (including NEA) assert the invalidity
of CDA registration in the ground of not following the
procedure outlined in EPIRA.
NEA:
1. In relation to ZAMECO IIs registration with CDA, NEA
assailed the validity as ZAMECO II failed to comply
with the EPIRAs formal conversion requirements to
structure either before it registered with CDA.
a. Stock Cooperative (RA No. 6938: Cooperative
Code) in relation to RA No. 6939.
b. Stock Corporation (Batas Pambansa Blg. 68:
Corporation Code)
2. EPIRA did not abrogate its regulatory power but
instead EPIRA enhances its power together with EO
No. 460.
3. NEA refutes allegation on due process as they insist
that they sent out notices of audit proceedings to
ZAMECO II.
3. Issue
1. Does NEA have the right to issue the assailed
Resolution?
2. Does NEA have the power and authority to supervise
and control electric cooperatives in light of EPIRA re:
CDA registered?
4. Decision
1. The appellate court has agreed that NEA properly
exercised its supervisory power over ZAMECO II.
2. It is a question of fact hence the case has been
remanded by court of appeals for further proceedings if
the procedure outlined in EPIRA re: Rules of Conversion
of an electric cooperative stock had been complied
with.
5. Reason
Under Sec. 58, Chapter VII of the EPIRA which states
that, "NEA shall continue to be under the supervision of
the DOE and shall exercise its functions under
Presidential Decree No. 269 (Creation of NEA), as
amended by Presidential Decree No. 1645 (Broadening
4
GR No 144474
1. Citation
The name of the case: SAMAR II and Baltazar Dacula vs.
Estrella Quijano
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the
September 7, 1999 decision of the court of appeals.
2. Facts
The petitioners assail the September 7, 1999 decision,
of the court of appeals, which affirmed in toto the
January 15, 1991 decision of the RTC, and July 17 2000
CA resolution which denied the petitioners motion for
reconsideration.
A. The trial court and the Honorable Court of
Appeals committed an error of law in their
interpretation and application of Articles 19 and
21 of the Civil Code.
6
1.
GR No 178218
1. Citation
The name of the case: Ramona Ramos and the Estate of
Luis T. Ramos vs PNB
Petition was denied and the decision that was under
petition for review on Certiorari was affirmed.
2. Facts
Ramona Ramos assailed petition for review on certiorari
under rule 45 of of the rules of court dated November 8,
2006 and resolution dated May 28, 2007.
Timeline:
1973
Luis Ramos obtained a credit line (83K) under an
agricultural loan from PNB with properties included in
the mortgage.
1989
Luis Ramos and PNB entered into a credit line
agreement in the amount of 50M under sugar quedan
financing program. With this agreement, he availed of
7.8M in April 3, 1989 and additional 7.8M in June 6,
1989 in total of 15.6M and executed a Contract of
Pledge in favor of PNB.
Arguments:
3. Issue
4. Decision
5. Reason
Important Notes:
1
0