SILVA vs MATIONG

G.R. No. 160174

499 SCRA 724

FACTS:

Respondent Leovigildo Mationg was the General Manager of Aklan Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AKELCO),
an electric cooperative under the supervision and control of the National Electrification Administration
(NEA) pursuant to PD 296, as amended by PD 1645 and to the Contract of Loan between the two.
Petitioner Francisco Silva was then the Administrator of NEA.

In March 2002, NEA cut-off the electricity in Aklan from 18 to 20 of March for AKELCOs failure to pay its
approximately P25 million obligation. On March 20, NAPOCOR restored the power supply to the area
upon learning of the NEA take-over. Despite the take-over, Mationg remained to be the General
Manager of AKELCO. On the same day, the AKELCO Board of Directors received a complaint seeking the
dismissal of Mationg for gross incompetence and mismanagement, and placed him under indefinite
preventive suspension under Resolution No. 18. The suspension was recalled expressing full confidence
in Mationgs management.

Due to the complexity of the issue, Bueno directed the opposing parties to submit their respective
position papers on the matter and enjoined them to cooperate with the NEA management team. The
two factions submitted their respective position papers.

On 11 April 2002, Silva issued a Resolution approving Board Resolution No. 18 and issued Resolution No.
22 authorizing the removal of Mationg as AKELCO General Manager. On 19 April, Silva issued an Order
for AKELCOs non-payment of loans and non-compliance with NEA policies, orders and guidelines.

On May 2, 2002, respondent filed a petition with the CA to enjoin petitioner from enforcing the April 11
resolution and the April 19 order, which provided the preventive suspension of respondent. On May 11,
the AKELCO-BOD Resolution No. 2 terminated its investigation finding respondent guilty of willful breach
of trust and confidence to the consumer-members and gross and habitual neglect of his duties as
General Manager.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioners approval of the AKELCO-BODs resolutions suspending and terminating
respondent as AKELCO General Manager is valid.

RULING:

Yes, the petition is meritorious. This case involves the exercise of the enforcement power of the NEA
under Section 10 of PD 269 as amended. In exercising its power of supervision and control over electric
cooperatives, NEA can issue orders, rules and regulations through its Board of Administrators, and motu
proprio or upon petition of third parties can conduct investigations in all matters affecting electric
cooperatives. One of these remedial measures as provided in Section 10(e) is the suspension or removal
of members of the Board of Directors, officers or employees of the defiant electric cooperative as the
NEA may deem fit and necessary.
NEPOMUCENO VS. CITY OF SURIGAO
G.R. No. 146091, July 28, 2008

FACTS:

Petitioner filed a complaint before the RTC for Recovery of Real Property and its market value to recover
a lot which was occupied, developed and used as a city road by the City of Surigao without permission
nor expropriation proceedings for its acquisition. Notwithstanding proposal for amicable settlement, the
City Mayor refused to pay.

RTC granted petitioner P3,260 as compensation for the land in dispute. Not satisfied, the petitioner
appealed to the CA. The CA entitled petitioner for moral damages but affirmed the compensation
awarded. Petitioner sought for the value at the time of actual payment invoking CA decisions with the
substantial factual similarity in this case, as well as Article 1250 of the Civil Code.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Article 1250 applies.

HELD:

No, petition is denied. In a long line of cases, it has been held that it is the value of the property at the
time of taking that is controlling for purposes of compensation. The owner of private property should be
compensated only for what he actually loses, it is not intended that his compensation shall extend
beyond his loss or injury. Moreover, what he loses is only the actual value of his property at the time it is
taken.

Regarding the contention on the applicability of Article 1250 of the Civil Code, Republic vs. CA states
that: Article 1250, providing that, in case of extraordinary inflation or deflation, the value of the
currency at the time of the establishment of the obligation shall be the basis for the payment when no
agreement to the contrary is stipulated, has strict application only to contrary is stipulated, has strict
application only to contractual obligations. In other words, a contractual agreement is needed for the
effects of extraordinary inflation to be taken into account to alter the value of the currency. Since there
was never any contractual obligation between the parties in this case, Article 1250 of the Civil Code finds
no application.