10/12/22, 10:43 AM Case Digest: COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.

DOLEFIL AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES COOPERAT…

by Jielah Queliope

    
COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. DOLEFIL AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES
COOPERATIVE, GR No. 137489, 2002-05-29 (/juris/view/cc763?
user=gWWZ6SUpLUEpUVzRuZHdSandKeEpBc2t6ZjdiOXZwa09hMzlQZStCbHBCcz0=)

Facts:

DE LEON, JR., J.:

At the core of the instant petition for review on certiorari of the Decision[1] of the Court of  Appeals, 13th...
n[2] dated February 9, 1999 is the issue of whether or not  petitioner Cooperative Development Authority
(CDA for brevity) is vested with quasi-judicial authority to adjudicate intra-cooperative disputes.

The record shows that sometime in the later part of 1997, the CDA received from cert

DE LEON, JR., J.:

At the core of the instant petition for review on certiorari of the Decision[1] of the Court of  Appeals, 13th
Division, in CA-G.R. SP. No. 47933 promulgated on September 9, 1998 and its Resolution[2] dated February
9, 1999 is the issue of whether or not  petitioner Cooperative Development Authority (CDA for brevity) is
vested with quasi-judicial authority to adjudicate intra-cooperative disputes.

The record shows that sometime in the later part of 1997, the CDA received from certain members of the
Dolefil Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative, Inc. (DARBCI for brevity), an agrarian reform cooperative
that owns 8,860 hectares of land in Polomolok, South Cotabato,... several complaints alleging
mismanagement and/or misappropriation of funds of DARBCI by the then incumbent officers and members
of the board of directors of the cooperative, some of whom are herein private respondents.

Acting on the complaints docketed as CDA-CO Case No. 97-011, CDA Executive Director Candelario L.
Verzosa, Jr. issued an order[3] dated December 8, 1997 directing the private respondents to file their answer
within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.

Before the private respondents could file their answer, however, CDA Administrator Alberto P. Zingapan
issued on December 15, 1997 an order,[4] upon the motion of the complainants in CDA-CO Case No. 97-011,
freezing the funds of DARBCI and creating a... management committee to manage the affairs of the said
cooperative.

On December 18, 1991, the private respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari[5] with a prayer for
preliminary injunction, damages and attorney's fees against the CDA and its officers namely: Candelario L.
Verzosa, Jr. and Alberto P. Zingapan, including the

DOLE Philippines Inc. before the Regional Trial Court (RTC for brevity) of Polomolok, South Cotabato, Branch
39.  The petition which was docketed as SP Civil Case No. 25, primarily questioned the jurisdiction of the CDA
to resolve the complaints against the private... respondents, specifically with respect to the authority of the
https://lawyerly.ph/digest/cc763?user=8573 1/6
10/12/22, 10:43 AM Case Digest: COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. DOLEFIL AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES COOPERAT…

CDA to issue the "freeze order" and to create a management committee that would run the affairs of
DARBCI.

On February 24, 1998, CDA Chairman Jose C. Medina, Jr. issued an order[6] in CDA-CO Case No. 97-011
placing the private respondents under preventive suspension, hence, paving the way for the newly-created
management committee[7] to... assume office on March 10, 1998.

On March 27, 1998, the RTC of Polomolok, South Cotabato, Branch 39, issued a temporary restraining
order[8] (TRO), initially for seventy-two (72) hours and subsequently extended to twenty (20) days, in an
Order dated March 31, 1998.  The temporary... restraining order, in effect, directed the parties to restore
status quo ante, thereby enabling the private respondents to reassume the management of DARBCI.

The CDA questioned the propriety of the temporary restraining order issued by the RTC of Polomolok, South
Cotabato on March 27, 1998 through a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, 12th Division,
which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.

47318.

ain members of the Dolefil Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative, Inc. (DARBCI for brevity), an agrarian
reform cooperative that owns 8,860 hectares of land in Polomolok, South Cotabato,... several complaints
alleging mismanagement and/or misappropriation of funds of DARBCI by the then incumbent officers and
members of the board of directors of the cooperative, some of whom are herein private respondents.

Acting on the complaints docketed as CDA-CO Case No. 97-011, CDA Executive Director Candelario L.
Verzosa, Jr. issued an order[3] dated December 8, 1997 directing the private respondents to file their answer
within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.

Before the private respondents could file their answer, however, CDA Administrator Alberto P. Zingapan
issued on December 15, 1997 an order,[4] upon the motion of the complainants in CDA-CO Case No. 97-011,
freezing the funds of DARBCI and creating a... management committee to manage the affairs of the said
cooperative.

On December 18, 1991, the private respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari[5] with a prayer for
preliminary injunction, damages and attorney's fees against the CDA and its officers namely: Candelario L.
Verzosa, Jr. and Alberto P. Zingapan, including the

DOLE Philippines Inc. before the Regional Trial Court (RTC for brevity) of Polomolok, South Cotabato, Branch
39.  The petition which was docketed as SP Civil Case No. 25, primarily questioned the jurisdiction of the CDA
to resolve the complaints against the private... respondents, specifically with respect to the authority of the
CDA to issue the "freeze order" and to create a management committee that would run the affairs of
DARBCI.

On February 24, 1998, CDA Chairman Jose C. Medina, Jr. issued an order[6] in CDA-CO Case No. 97-011
placing the private respondents under preventive suspension, hence, paving the way for the newly-created
management committee[7] to... assume office on March 10, 1998.

On March 27, 1998, the RTC of Polomolok, South Cotabato, Branch 39, issued a temporary restraining
order[8] (TRO), initially for seventy-two (72) hours and subsequently extended to twenty (20) days, in an
Order dated March 31, 1998.  The temporary... restraining order, in effect, directed the parties to restore
status quo ante, thereby enabling the private respondents to reassume the management of DARBCI.

https://lawyerly.ph/digest/cc763?user=8573 2/6
10/12/22, 10:43 AM Case Digest: COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. DOLEFIL AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES COOPERAT…

The CDA questioned the propriety of the temporary restraining order issued by the RTC of Polomolok, South
Cotabato on March 27, 1998 through a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, 12th Division,
which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.

47318.

On April 21, 1998, the Court of Appeals, 12th Division, issued a temporary restraining order[9] in CA-G.R. SP
No. 47318 enjoining the RTC of Polomolok, South Cotabato, Branch 39, from enforcing the restraining order
which the latter... court issued on March 27, 1998, and ordered that the proceedings in SP Civil Case No. 25
be held in abeyance.

Consequently, the CDA continued with the proceedings in CDA-CO Case No. 97-011.  On May 26, 1998 CDA
Administrator Arcadio S. Lozada issued a resolution[10] which directed the holding of a special general
assembly of the members of DARBCI and the... creation of an ad hoc election committee to supervise the
election of officers and members of the board of directors of DARBCI scheduled on June 14, 1998

DE LEON, JR., J.:

At the core of the instant petition for review on certiorari of the Decision[1] of the Court of  Appeals, 13th
Division, in CA-G.R. SP. No. 47933 promulgated on September 9, 1998 and its Resolution[2] dated February
9, 1999 is the issue of whether or not  petitioner Cooperative Development Authority (CDA for brevity) is
vested with quasi-judicial authority to adjudicate intra-cooperative disputes.

The record shows that sometime in the later part of 1997, the CDA received from certain members of the
Dolefil Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative, Inc. (DARBCI for brevity), an agrarian reform cooperative
that owns 8,860 hectares of land in Polomolok, South Cotabato,... several complaints alleging
mismanagement and/or misappropriation of funds of DARBCI by the then incumbent officers and members
of the board of directors of the cooperative, some of whom are herein private respondents.

Acting on the complaints docketed as CDA-CO Case No. 97-011, CDA Executive Director Candelario L.
Verzosa, Jr. issued an order[3] dated December 8, 1997 directing the private respondents to file their answer
within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.

Before the private respondents could file their answer, however, CDA Administrator Alberto P. Zingapan
issued on December 15, 1997 an order,[4] upon the motion of the complainants in CDA-CO Case No. 97-011,
freezing the funds of DARBCI and creating a... management committee to manage the affairs of the said
cooperative.

On December 18, 1991, the private respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari[5] with a prayer for
preliminary injunction, damages and attorney's fees against the CDA and its officers namely: Candelario L.
Verzosa, Jr. and Alberto P. Zingapan, including the

DOLE Philippines Inc. before the Regional Trial Court (RTC for brevity) of Polomolok, South Cotabato, Branch
39.  The petition which was docketed as SP Civil Case No. 25, primarily questioned the jurisdiction of the CDA
to resolve the complaints against the private... respondents, specifically with respect to the authority of the
CDA to issue the "freeze order" and to create a management committee that would run the affairs of
DARBCI.

On February 24, 1998, CDA Chairman Jose C. Medina, Jr. issued an order[6] in CDA-CO Case No. 97-011
placing the private respondents under preventive suspension, hence, paving the way for the newly-created
management committee[7] to... assume office on March 10, 1998.
https://lawyerly.ph/digest/cc763?user=8573 3/6
10/12/22, 10:43 AM Case Digest: COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. DOLEFIL AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES COOPERAT…

On March 27, 1998, the RTC of Polomolok, South Cotabato, Branch 39, issued a temporary restraining
order[8] (TRO), initially for seventy-two (72) hours and subsequently extended to twenty (20) days, in an
Order dated March 31, 1998.  The temporary... restraining order, in effect, directed the parties to restore
status quo ante, thereby enabling the private respondents to reassume the management of DARBCI.

The CDA questioned the propriety of the temporary restraining order issued by the RTC of Polomolok, South
Cotabato on March 27, 1998 through a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, 12th Division,
which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.

47318.

On April 21, 1998, the Court of Appeals, 12th Division, issued a temporary restraining order[9] in CA-G.R. SP
No. 47318 enjoining the RTC of Polomolok, South Cotabato, Branch 39, from enforcing the restraining order
which the latter... court issued on March 27, 1998, and ordered that the proceedings in SP Civil Case No. 25
be held in abeyance.

Consequently, the CDA continued with the proceedings in CDA-CO Case No. 97-011.  On May 26, 1998 CDA
Administrator Arcadio S. Lozada issued a resolution[10] which directed the holding of a special general
assembly of the members of DARBCI and the... creation of an ad hoc election committee to supervise the
election of officers and members of the board of directors of DARBCI scheduled on June 14, 1998

DE LEON, JR., J.:

At the core of the instant petition for review on certiorari of the Decision[1] of the Court of  Appeals, 13th
Division, in CA-G.R. SP. No. 47933 promulgated on September 9, 1998 and its Resolution[2] dated February
9, 1999 is the issue of whether or not  petitioner Cooperative Development Authority (CDA for brevity) is
vested with quasi-judicial authority to adjudicate intra-cooperative disputes.

The record shows that sometime in the later part of 1997, the CDA received from certain members of the
Dolefil Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Cooperative, Inc. (DARBCI for brevity), an agrarian reform cooperative
that owns 8,860 hectares of land in Polomolok, South Cotabato,... several complaints alleging
mismanagement and/or misappropriation of funds of DARBCI by the then incumbent officers and members
of the board of directors of the cooperative, some of whom are herein private respondents.

Acting on the complaints docketed as CDA-CO Case No. 97-011, CDA Executive Director Candelario L.
Verzosa, Jr. issued an order[3] dated December 8, 1997 directing the private respondents to file their answer
within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.

Before the private respondents could file their answer, however, CDA Administrator Alberto P. Zingapan
issued on December 15, 1997 an order,[4] upon the motion of the complainants in CDA-CO Case No. 97-011,
freezing the funds of DARBCI and creating a... management committee to manage the affairs of the said
cooperative.

On December 18, 1991, the private respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari[5] with a prayer for
preliminary injunction, damages and attorney's fees against the CDA and its officers namely: Candelario L.
Verzosa, Jr. and Alberto P. Zingapan, including the

DOLE Philippines Inc. before the Regional Trial Court (RTC for brevity) of Polomolok, South Cotabato, Branch
39.  The petition which was docketed as SP Civil Case No. 25, primarily questioned the jurisdiction of the CDA
to resolve the complaints against the private... respondents, specifically with respect to the authority of the

https://lawyerly.ph/digest/cc763?user=8573 4/6
10/12/22, 10:43 AM Case Digest: COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. DOLEFIL AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES COOPERAT…

CDA to issue the "freeze order" and to create a management committee that would run the affairs of
DARBCI.

On February 24, 1998, CDA Chairman Jose C. Medina, Jr. issued an order[6] in CDA-CO Case No. 97-011
placing the private respondents under preventive suspension, hence, paving the way for the newly-created
management committee[7] to... assume office on March 10, 1998.

On March 27, 1998, the RTC of Polomolok, South Cotabato, Branch 39, issued a temporary restraining
order[8] (TRO), initially for seventy-two (72) hours and subsequently extended to twenty (20) days, in an
Order dated March 31, 1998.  The temporary... restraining order, in effect, directed the parties to restore
status quo ante, thereby enabling the private respondents to reassume the management of DARBCI.

The CDA questioned the propriety of the temporary restraining order issued by the RTC of Polomolok, South
Cotabato on March 27, 1998 through a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, 12th Division,
which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.

47318.

On April 21, 1998, the Court of Appeals, 12th Division, issued a temporary restraining order[9] in CA-G.R. SP
No. 47318 enjoining the RTC of Polomolok, South Cotabato, Branch 39, from enforcing the restraining order
which the latter... court issued on March 27, 1998, and ordered that the proceedings in SP Civil Case No. 25
be held in abeyance.

Consequently, the CDA continued with the proceedings in CDA-CO Case No. 97-011.  On May 26, 1998 CDA
Administrator Arcadio S. Lozada issued a resolution[10] which directed the holding of a special general
assembly of the members of DARBCI and the... creation of an ad hoc election committee to supervise the
election of officers and members of the board of directors of DARBCI scheduled on June 14, 1998.

of the board of directors of DARBCI on June 14, 1998.  Thereafter, it also issued a writ of preliminary
injunction.

The CDA filed a motion for reconsideration[17] of the Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 47933 but it was denied by
the Court of Appeals in its assailed Resolution[18] dated February 9, 1999, thus:

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for being patently without merit.

Issues:

The CDA filed a motion for reconsideration[17] of the Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 47933 but it was denied by
the Court of Appeals in its assailed Resolution[18] dated February 9, 1999, thus:

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for being patently without merit.

Ruling:

MOREOVER, acting on petitioners' Twin Motion, and in view of the  Decision  in  this case dated 09,
September 1998, the tenor of which gives it legal effect nunc pro tunc.  We therefore hold the 12 July 1998
election  of  officers, ... the  resolutions  passed during the said assembly, and the subsequent oath-taking of
the officers elected therein, and all actions taken during the said meeting, being in blatant defiance of a valid
restraining order issued by this Court, to be NULL AND VOID AB

INITIO AND OF NO LEGAL FORCE AND EFFECT.

https://lawyerly.ph/digest/cc763?user=8573 5/6
10/12/22, 10:43 AM Case Digest: COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. DOLEFIL AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES COOPERAT…

FURTHERMORE, the private respondents are hereby given thirty (30) days from receipt of this Resolution
within which to explain in writing why they should not be held in contempt of this Court for having openly
defied the restraining order dated 10 July 1998.  The Hon. Jose

C. Medina of the CDA is given a like period to explain in writing why he should not be cited in contempt for
having administered the oath of the "Board of Officers" pending the effectivity of the restraining order.  The
respondent Arcadio S. Lozada, Administrator of the

CDA, is likewise given the same period to explain why he should not be held in contempt for issuing a
resolution on 21 July 1998 validating the proceedings of the assembly, and another resolution on 28 August
1998 confirming the election of the officers thereof.

SO ORDERED.

Hence, the instant petition[19] for review which raises the following assignments of error:

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, IN NULLIFYING THE ORDERS AND RESOLUTIONS OF THE
COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN CDA CO CASE NO. 97-011, DECIDED A QUESTION OF
SUBSTANCE THAT IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME
COURT.

II

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE RULE ON FORUM-SHOPPING.

III

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RENDERING A DECISION ON THE BASIS OF PURE
CONJECTURES AND SURMISES AND HAS DEPARTED FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE OF
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH CALL FOR AN EXERCISE OF THIS HONORABLE COURT'S
SUPERVISION.

The quasi-judicial nature of the foregoing functions is bolstered by the provisions of Sections 3(o) of R.A. No.
6939 which grants CDA on (sic) the exercise of other functions as may be necessary to implement the
provisions of cooperative laws, the power to summarily punish for... direct contempt any person guilty of
misconduct in the presence thereof who seriously interrupts any hearing or inquiry with a fine or
imprisonment prescribed therein, a power usually granted to make effective the exercise of quasi-judicial
functions.

Principles:

https://lawyerly.ph/digest/cc763?user=8573 6/6