Manila Electric Company v. Energy Regulatory Board
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Edgar L. Ti, doing business as ELT Enterprise, filed a complaint against Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) for allegedly unlawfully disconnecting electric service and seizing three electric meters from his business establishment on mere suspicion of meter tampering. Ti alleged the disconnection notice was served at night and the disconnection was not done in his presence or his representative's, causing him damage. Procedural History: The Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) issued an Order dated October 22, 1999, provisionally ordering MERALCO to reconnect the electric service and submit its comment. MERALCO moved for reconsideration, arguing it found meter tampering and that the ERB lacked jurisdiction to issue provisional relief. MERALCO also filed a criminal complaint against Ti for violating R.A. No. 7832. The ERB, in an Order dated December 27, 1999, denied MERALCO's motion for reconsideration, reiterating the reconnection directive. MERALCO then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the ERB's orders for lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The CA affirmed the ERB's orders. MERALCO then filed the present petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: MERALCO seeks to annul the CA decision, arguing that the ERB has no jurisdiction to hear controversies arising from violations of R.A. No. 7832 and that the ERB erroneously concluded it had the authority to issue a provisional remedy in the nature of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction without the requisite bond.
Issue(s)
Whether the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) has jurisdiction to order the reconnection of electric service in cases arising from alleged violations of R.A. No. 7832. Whether the ERB has the authority to issue a provisional order for reconnection.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 22, 2000, is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the ERB to order reconnection: The Court held that the ERB has jurisdiction to order the reconnection of electric service in cases arising from alleged violations of R.A. No. 7832. The Court traced the historical development of regulatory bodies, from the Board of Rate Regulation to the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB), emphasizing that the ERB, by virtue of Executive Order No. 172, consolidated all regulatory and adjudicatory functions covering the energy sector. This consolidation included the powers previously vested in the Public Service Commission (PSC) under Commonwealth Act No. 146, which granted the PSC general supervision and control over public utilities, including the power to investigate matters concerning public services and to require them to furnish adequate and proper service. The Court reasoned that the ERB's power of control and supervision over public utilities would be meaningless if it were precluded from requiring a public utility to reconnect service pending the determination of the propriety of the disconnection. The allegations in Ti's complaint clearly invoked the ERB's jurisdiction concerning MERALCO's obligation to supply adequate electricity and proper service. Therefore, the ERB could properly take cognizance of the complaint for reconnection. On the ERB's authority to issue a provisional order for reconnection: The Court affirmed the ERB's authority to grant provisional relief. Section 8 of E.O. No. 172 explicitly vests the ERB with the authority to grant provisional relief upon the filing of an application, petition, or complaint, or at any stage thereafter, and without prior hearing, based on supporting papers. Rule 13, Section 2 of the ERB's Rules of Practice and Procedure further supports this power. The Court found that the ERB did not exceed its legal mandate when it ordered MERALCO to restore electric service pending the hearing of the main case, as this was an exercise of its power to grant ancillary relief. The Court also clarified that Section 9 of R.A. No. 7832, which prohibits courts from issuing injunctions against disconnection unless there is prima facie evidence of bad faith or grave abuse of authority, does not apply to administrative agencies like the ERB, as the term "court" in that provision refers to regular courts of the judicial department. The ERB's "Terms and Conditions of Service," approved upon MERALCO's behest, also afford customers a plain and adequate remedy for grievances against a public utility.
Main Doctrine
The Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) has jurisdiction to order the reconnection of electric service in cases arising from alleged violations of R.A. No. 7832, and possesses the authority to grant provisional relief, including reconnection orders, pending the final determination of the case.