Power can’t be cut sans written notice, says SC
Friday, July 28, 2006
By REY G. PANALIGAN
The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that electricity providers like the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) and electric cooperatives (ECs) cannot disconnect service to consumers without proper written notice even if they are caught red-handed pilfering electricity.
In a decision written by Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, the "requirement of prior notice before disconnection of electric service is not a futile expletive in the law" (Republic Act No. 7832 or the Anti-Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines/Materials Pilferage Act of 1994).
"In fact, even if there is strong 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 RA 7832," the SC said.
"And even if the consumer is caught in flagrante delicto (red handed) committing the acts (pilferage)… the same law still requires prior written notice or warning," it said.
RA 7832 states that the presence in any part of the building or its premises which is subject to the control of the consumer or on the electric meter of a current reversing transformer, jumper, shorting and/or shunting wire, and/or loop connection or any other similar device is evidence of illegal use of electricity.
With the decision, the SC denied the petition of Meralco challenging the order issued by the Las Piñas City Regional Trial Court (RTC) which, among other, ordered the electric firm to reconnect the disconnected electric service of Carmencita B. Lota.
Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, chairman of the SC third division, and Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Dante O. Tinga, and Presbitero J. Velasco Jr. concurred in the decision.
Court records said that at about 11 a.m. on Nov. 10, 2003, Meralco’s service inspectors checked on Lota’s electric metering installation in her residence and found two-line jumpers on a stolen meter. After taking photographs of the jumper, it was confiscated by the service inspectors, who, thereafter, disconnected the electric service.
At about 2 p.m. on the same day, Meralco’s field personnel led by Rene Musngi served the notice of disconnection and meter facilities inspection report on Lota’s son, Raymond.
According to Meralco, Lota’s illegal installation caused losses to the power firm amounting to R1.3 million representing unregistered electric consumption for three years from Nov. 28, 2000 to Nov. 10, 2003.
When Lota failed to pay the bill of R1.3 million, Meralco refused to reconnect her electric service. Lota filed a case with the Las Piñas City RTC, asking the court to compel Meralco to reconnect her electric service, and pleaded for a preliminary mandatory injunction.
RTC Judge Lorna Navarro Domingo issued the mandatory injunction and required Lota to post a R10,000 bond. The judge also ordered the immediate reconnection of Lota’s electric service.
Meralco elevated the case to the SC, insisting that the immediate disconnection of Lota’s electric service was warranted with the discovery of illegal electric connections. It pointed out that the disconnection was done in full compliance with RA 7832.
It also claimed that RA 7832 allows automatic disconnection by the electric utility in case of illegal use of electricity.
At the same time, Meralco told the SC that the trial court judge abused her discretion by fixing the injunction bond at R10,000 only instead of R1.3 million as provided for in RA 7832.
In resolving the issue, the SC said that unless the disconnection of an electric service was done with evident bad faith or grave abuse of authority, a writ of injunction or restraining order cannot be issued against any private electric utility firm or ECs.
However, it said that Meralco itself admitted that the notice of disconnection was served on Lota’s son three hours after the disconnection of the electric service.
"Evidently, the prior notice requirement under the law was violated, and this evinces bad faith or abuse of authority on the part of Meralco which sufficed as basis for the grant of the order for the issuance of the writ of mandatory injunction," the SC said.
"Parenthetically, that it took three years for Meralco to discover the illegal installation evinces negligence on its part which could serve as additional basis for the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction," it added.
On the R10,000 bond, the SC said that RA 7832 provides a remedy for Meralco by filing a counterbond so that the trial court could act accordingly in line with the provisions of the law. "It appears, however, that Meralco did not avail itself of such remedy…." the SC said.
posted by philpower @ 9:03 AM,
