This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-07-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In Silva v. Mationg,[24] the approval by the NEA of the dismissal of the general manager of AKELCO who replaced Besana was upheld by this Court on this basis: The NEA, as a public corporation, acts through its Board of Administrators, composed of a Chairman and four members, one of whom is the Administrator as ex-officio member. The NEA exercises supervision and control over electric cooperatives organized and operating under the mandate of PD 269, as amended. The extent of government control over electric cooperatives covered by PD 269, as amended, is largely a function of the NEA as a primary source of funds of these electric cooperatives. | |||||
|
2009-10-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As aptly pointed out by petitioner RCBC in its Comment, not once did Marcopper question the validity of the chattel mortgage on the Rig Haul Trucks and the Demag Shovel. But now, Marcopper is asserting that the deed of chattel mortgage on these equipment was executed for a consideration that did not materialize and RCBC should have released the mortgage. It is now too late for respondent to contradict its previous judicial admissions in the prior proceedings of the case. It would appear that in Marcopper's attempt to seek reversal of the Court's Decision, it is in effect changing its theory of the case. Well-settled is the rule that a party is not allowed to change the theory of the case or the cause of action on appeal.[18] We have consistently rejected the pernicious practice of shifting to a new theory on appeal in the hope of a favorable result.[19] Issues not raised in the court a quo cannot be raised for the first time on appeal because to do so would be offensive to the basic rules of justice and fair play.[20] Matters, theories or arguments not brought out in the proceedings below will not ordinarily be considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[21] | |||||
|
2007-04-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| No Cooperative shall borrow money from any source without the Board of Administrator's prior approval: Provided, That the NEA Board of Administrators, may, by appropriate rule or regulation, grant general permission to Cooperative to secure short-term loans not requiring the encumbrance of their real properties or of a substantial portion of their other properties or assets. It is a fundamental rule in statutory construction that the clauses, phrases, sections and provisions of a law be read as a whole; never as disjointed or truncated parts,[16] for a law is enacted as a single entity and not by installment of paragraphs here and subsections there.[17] Applying this rule to Section 10, its opening paragraph must be read in relation to the succeeding subsections. The phrase in the opening paragraph ostensibly vesting in the NEA jurisdiction over "all matters" involving electric cooperatives actually pertain to the subjects covered in the succeeding subsections such as the organization of electric cooperatives,[18] rate fixing,[19] loan agreements and fund management. This is a rational understanding of Section 10 for, as specified in the preamble of the law, the primary purpose of the NEA is to ensure total electrification through the administration of funds for the establishment and operation of electric cooperatives. | |||||