Manila Electric Company v. Lota
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Service inspectors of Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) inspected Carmencita B. Lota's electric metering installation and found a two-line "jumper" using a stolen meter. Photographs were taken, and the jumper was confiscated. Later that day, MERALCO personnel served a Notice of Disconnection and Meter Facilities Inspection Report on Carmencita's son. MERALCO claimed the illegal installation caused losses of P1,302,239.25 due to unregistered electric consumption from November 28, 2000, to November 10, 2003, and demanded payment. Carmencita refused to pay, and MERALCO refused to reconnect her service line. Procedural History: Carmencita filed a Complaint, later amended, for reconnection of electric service line with a prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction and damages before the RTC of Las Piñas, Branch 201. After a hearing on her prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, the RTC issued an Order dated December 22, 2003, directing the issuance of a "Writ of Injunction." MERALCO moved for reconsideration, which was denied by an Order dated January 28, 2004. However, the RTC, by an Order dated January 9, 2004, initially set aside its December 22, 2003 Order, then by another Order also dated January 9, 2004, set aside both the December 22, 2003 Order and the first January 9, 2004 Order to incorporate the word "mandatory" in its directive for the issuance of the writ. Carmencita posted a P10,000 bond, and a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction was issued, ordering MERALCO to reconnect Carmencita's electric line and refrain from further disconnection. The Petition: MERALCO filed a petition for certiorari, assailing the RTC's Orders for allegedly issuing the writ of preliminary injunction in the absence of bad faith and for requiring an injunction bond of only P10,000 instead of the claimed differential billing of P1,302,239.25, as allegedly required by R.A. 7832.
Issue(s)
Whether the public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction. Whether the public respondent gravely abused her discretion in fixing the injunction bond at P10,000.00 instead of P1,302,239.25.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction: The Court held that Section 9 of Republic Act No. 7832 explicitly states that no writ of injunction or restraining order shall be issued against any private electric utility exercising its right to disconnect electric service unless there is prima facie evidence that the disconnection was made with evident bad faith or grave abuse of authority. In this case, MERALCO's own witness admitted that the Notice of Disconnection was served on Carmencita's son three hours after the disconnection of her electric service. This violation of the prior notice requirement under the law constitutes prima facie evidence of bad faith or grave abuse of authority on the part of MERALCO, which sufficed as a basis for the grant of the order for the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. The requirement of prior notice is not a mere expletive in the law; even if a consumer is caught in flagrante delicto, Section 6 of R.A. 7832 still mandates prior written notice or warning before disconnection. On the sufficiency of the injunction bond: The Court found no showing how MERALCO arrived at the differential billing of over P1,000,000.00 to serve as a substantial basis for the bond amount. While R.A. 7832 fixes the bond to be "equivalent to the 'differential billing,' penalties and other charges, or to the total value of the subject matter of the action," a court cannot blindly rely on the bare assessment of the petitioner. The purpose of the bond is to secure the enjoined party against damages if the injunction is wrongfully issued. The amount of the bond ordinarily depends on the gravity of potential harm, and the court may fix the amount accordingly if the risk of harm is remote or circumstances warrant it, even to the extent of a nominal bond. Furthermore, MERALCO did not avail itself of the remedy provided in Section 9 of R.A. 7832, which allows the utility to file a counterbond to dissolve the injunction, thereby affording the trial court an opportunity to assess the probable relative damages.
Main Doctrine
A writ of injunction or restraining order may not be issued against a private electric utility exercising its right to disconnect electric service unless there is prima facie evidence that the disconnection was made with evident bad faith or grave abuse of authority. The violation of the prior notice requirement under R.A. 7832 constitutes prima facie evidence of bad faith or grave abuse of authority, justifying the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.