Case Digest: MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. HON. LORNA NAVARRO-DOMINGO

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. HON. LORNA NAVARRO-DOMINGO

493 SCRA 363 (2006), THIRD DIVISION

Service inspectors of the Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) conducted an inspection of Carmencita B. Lota‘s electric metering installation at her residence and found therein a two-line “jumper” using a stolen meter, hence they disconnected her services. MERALCO then returned after a few hours to Lota’s house and served a Notice of Disconnection and Meter Facilities Inspection Report upon her son Raymond. Lota refused to settle the bill and MERALCO refused to reconnect her service line.

Lota thus filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a Complaint for reconnection of electric service line with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction and damages which granted the motion with damages. The RTC further decreed that MERALCO reconnect the electricity in Lota‘s home pending a 10,000 peso bond.

MERALCO contended that the injunction violated Section 9 of Republic Act No. 7832 or the Electricity Pilferage Act which prohibits injunctions to cases of disconnection and further allege that the 10,000 peso bond is not sufficient since the differential billing that must be settled is more that 1 million pesos. Hence this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the issuance of the Order directing the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction requiring MERALCO to reconnect Lota‘s electric service, conditioned upon her posting of a P10,000 bond is proper

HELD:

Unless, therefore, there is prima facie evidence that the disconnection of electric service was made with evident bad faith or grave abuse of authority, a writ of injunction or restraining order may not issue against any private electric utility or rural electric cooperative exercising the right and authority to disconnect such service.

By MERALCO‘s witness Almeda‘s own admission however, the Notice of Disconnection was served on her son three hours after the disconnection of Lota‘s electric service. Evidently, the prior notice requirement under the law was violated. This prima facie evinces bad faith or grave abuse of authority on the part of petitioner which sufficed as basis for the grant of the order for the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction.

The requirement of prior notice before disconnection of electric service is not a futile expletive in the law. In fact, even if there is prima facie evidence of illegal use of electricity and immediate disconnection is warranted under the circumstances, prior notice is still required as mandated under Section 4 of R.A. 7832.

And even if the consumer is caught in flagrante delicto committing the acts enumerated in Section 4(a), Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7832, it still requires prior written notice or warning.