MBA 113: CASE ANALYSIS 1

Case Analysis of the following:

1. GR No 176935-36
2. GR No 144474
3. GR No 178218

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

Case Analysis by Elva Aban

MBA 113: CASE ANALYSIS 3

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electric cooperatives has been revoked by the EPIRA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

Case Analysis by Elva Aban

MBA 113: CASE ANALYSIS 5

the lending and regulatory power of NEA) insofar as

they are consistent with this Act."
With this amended law, NEA has the right to issue the
assailed
resolution
and
have
the
power
to
administrative cases involving the board members,
officers and employees of ZAMECO II.
It was also evident in the audit report in 1998 that
ZAMECO II have lawfully violated the guidelines of NEA
hence the reason of the case.
Important Notes:
Sec. 57, Chapter VII of the EPIRA provides that, "Electric
cooperatives are hereby given the option to convert
into either stock cooperative under the Cooperatives
Development Act or stock corporation under the
Corporation Code
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 the lending
and regulatory power of NEA) insofar as they are
consistent with this Act."
PSALM was created in order to "manage the orderly
sale, disposition, and privatization of NPC generation
assets, real estate and other disposable assets, and IPP
contracts with the objective of liquidating all NPC
financial obligations and stranded contract costs in an
optimal manner."
ERC was mandated to "promote competition, encourage
market development, ensure customer choice and
penalize abuse of market power in the restructured
electricity industry."

An appellate court, commonly called an appeals court,

court of appeals, appeal court, court of second instance
or second instance court, is any court of law that is
empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other
lower tribunal
Question/s relating to the laws applicable to this case:
1. What is the jurisdiction between ERC and NEA?
2. Will the already issued CDA registration be revoked
because of this case?

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

Case Analysis by Elva Aban

MBA 113: CASE ANALYSIS 7

1.

SAMELCO II was not primarily motivated

by hatred or desire to cause damage or
prejudice upon herein respondent and her
family but rather by its desire to save itself
from financial destruction by eliminating, if
not minimizing, pilferage of electricity.
2.
There was sufficient factual basis for
SAMELCO II to inspect its own electric meter
installed at the store and residence of herein
respondent.
3.
Herein petitioners' inspection of the
electric meter and the electric appliances and
contrivances inside the store and residence of
herein respondent was practically with prior
authority from the latter.
4.
The inspection of the electric meter and of
herein respondents' appliances, lamps and
other electrical gadgets, as well as the
removal of the meter, were not done in
wanton and high-handed manner. No abuse
of right was ever committed by herein
petitioners.
B. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not
dismissing the complaint of herein respondent
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Arguments:
Petitioners, nonetheless, reiterate the arguments in
their Motion for Reconsideration with the CA that, as
respondents
are
its
members-consumers,
their
complaint falls within the jurisdiction of the NEA based
on Sections 10, 35 and 46 of Presidential Decree (P.D.)
No. 269
There is no allegation therein of matters involving the
organization of electric cooperatives, rate fixing, loan
agreement and fund management which would bring
the case within the operation of Section 10; neither is

there an averment of a discriminatory practice in rate

fixing or service distribution, which would make Section
35 applicable; nor protest against service failure as
would subject the complaint to Section 46. Instead, it is
expressly stated in respondents complaint that their
action is for recovery of damages for mental anguish,
social humiliation and moral shock arising from the
disconnection of their electric service by petitioners,
which action is cognizable by the regular courts, such
as the RTC.
3. Issue
1. Did the Court of Appeals have made an error in the
1999 in toto with 1991 decision?
4. Decision
1. No. In their decision held the petitioner liable for
damages to Quijano due to lack of consent and
presence of respondents in the whole process.
5. Reason
According to RA 7832 (Electricity Pilferage), an electric
cooperative have the right and authority to disconnect
immediately after serving a written notice or warning in
effect. Clearly, SAMELCO did not abide with the
protocols as covered within the RA 7832.
The fact that the inspector disconnects the meter after
inspection and without notice to the registered
customer, it violated aforementioned law above. The
daughter present during the disconnection does not
constitute consent because the daughter is not the
registered customer and is not in contract with
SAMELCO II.
What should be the right thing to do?
1. Dacula, the inspector should have:
a. Endorsed this in their differential billings staff if
there is or call a barangay official or a police
officer near the actual case of pilferage to serve
as witness
8

Case Analysis by Elva Aban

MBA 113: CASE ANALYSIS 9

b. Take a picture of the meter

c. Issue a job order to disconnect
d. Come up with an agreement and settlement
Important Notes:
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court.
P.D. No. 269 appoints the NEA as overseer of electric
cooperatives, its supervision is limited to matters
concerning loans, rate fixing and service improvement,
but does not include adjudication of claims for damages
against electric cooperatives arising from such acts as
the arbitrary disconnection of electrical services to a
member.
RA No. 7832 allows electric cooperatives multiple
remedies consisting of immediate disconnection of the
electric service of the erring consumer, criminal
prosecution, and the imposition of surcharges.
Under PD 401 the remedies available to it were merely
the conduct of inspections of electric meters and the
criminal prosecution of those erring consumers who
were found to have tampered with their electric meter

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

Case Analysis by Elva Aban