Court bars firm from cutting supply to customers sans 48-hour notice
The Supreme Court has declared that the Manila Electric Company (Meralco) cannot disconnect a consumer’s electric service without a 48-hour notice.
In a decision made available Friday, the SC ruled as violative of due process requirements if Meralco disconnects the consumer’s electric service on the day the notice of disconnection is issued.
The high court said should the power retailer disconnect an electric service on the day the notice of disconnection is issued, “Meralco is presumed to be in bad faith for its failure to follow the due notice requirement under Republic Act No. 7832.”
RA 7832 is the Anti-Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines/Materials Pilferage Act of 1994.
In a statement, the SC’s Public Information Office said the high tribunal “denied the petition of the Manila Electric Company (Meralco) assailing a Court of Appeals (CA) decision which affirmed that the electric firm violated RA 7832 … for cutting off the electricity supply of a consumer without prior notice.”
In reply, Meralco spokesperson Joe Zaldarriaga said: “We have not officially received a copy of the SC decision. In any case, we will respect and abide by the said decision.”
“We note that the incident in question happened in 1999. It has been Meralco’s policy to serve 48-hour prior notice before disconnecting any service to comply with the due process requirements,” he added.
In her complaint for damages against Meralco, respondent Lucy Lu alleged that on Dec. 9, 1999, representatives from Meralco forcibly entered the premises of the New Supersonic Industrial Corporation (NSIC) in Valenzuela City, which her family owned.
After the inspection, the Meralco representatives issued a Notice of Disconnection and immediately disconnected the electricity supply of NSIC’s factory and Yu’s residence.
This prompted respondent Yu to file a complaint for damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City, Branch 172. The RTC ruled in Yu’s favor. Meralco elevated the case to the CA, which affirmed the RTC ruling with modification.
Meralco then appealed before the High Court.
In denying Meralco’s petition for review on certiorari, the Court ruled that before Meralco can disconnect the electric service of a consumer on grounds cited under Section 4(a) of RA 7832, there must be prior written notice to the consumer to disconnect.
The Court emphasized the prior written notice must be given at least 48 hours prior to the disconnection, pursuant to due process requirements.
“Thus, the act of Meralco in cutting off the respondent’s electricity on the same day the disconnection notice was given to the consumer was violative of due process requirements,” the SC said.
The Court further held that Meralco is presumed to be in bad faith for its failure to follow the due notice requirement under RA 7832 during the disconnection of Yu’s electric service.
Hence, the SC denied Meralco’s Petition for Review on Certiorari, and affirmed the Decision dated Nov. 26, 2020 of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 111808, as follows:
the award of temperate damages is reduced to P50,000; the award of moral damages is deleted for lack of basis; and the award of exemplary damages is reduced to P100,000.
“The Court ordered that the rest of the CA ruling stands,” the SC statement said.
