The Supreme Court ruled that electric companies cannot immediately disconnect a customer’s service based solely on finding a tampered meter, unless the customer is caught in the act of tampering. This decision underscores the importance of due process and protects consumers from arbitrary disconnection, ensuring that evidence of tampering alone is insufficient for immediate action without proof of the consumer’s direct involvement. The ruling clarifies the circumstances under which electric companies can disconnect service for alleged electricity pilferage, balancing the power company’s rights with the consumer’s right to uninterrupted service.

Electricity Tampering: When Can Utilities Immediately Disconnect Your Service?

Jeffrey Go contested the disconnection of his electricity supply by Leyte II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (LEYECO II) after an inspection found a tampered meter at his residence. The inspection, conducted in the presence of a barangay chairman and a police officer, revealed a broken seal and a shunting wire, leading LEYECO II to issue a “Notice of Apprehension and Disconnection” demanding payment for pilferage. Go sought an injunction, arguing the inspection was irregular and lacked legal basis. The Regional Trial Court initially granted the injunction, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, prompting Go to elevate the case to the Supreme Court. The core legal question revolved around whether LEYECO II followed the correct procedure under Republic Act No. 7832, also known as the Anti-Electricity Pilferage Act, in disconnecting Go’s electricity service.

The Supreme Court, in analyzing the case, focused on whether Go was caught in flagrante delicto, meaning “in the very act of committing the crime.” The Court emphasized that to be caught in such a manner requires direct evidence, or positive identification by eyewitnesses. The Court referred to Section 6 of R.A. No. 7832, which outlines the conditions under which a private electric utility can immediately disconnect service:

SEC. 6. Disconnection of Electric Service. – The private electric utility or rural electric cooperative concerned shall have the right and authority to disconnect immediately the electric service after serving a written notice or warning to that effect, without the need of a court or administrative order, and deny restoration of the same, when the owner of the house or establishment concerned or someone acting in his behalf shall have been caught en flagrante delicto doing any of the acts enumerated in Section 4 (a) hereof, x x x.”

Since Go was not present during the inspection, nor was any representative of his, the Court found it impossible for him to have been caught in the act of committing an offense. The presence of a broken seal and shunting wire merely constituted prima facie evidence of illegal use of electricity, insufficient to justify immediate disconnection under Section 6 of R.A. No. 7832. Building on this, the Supreme Court clarified the conditions under which a writ of preliminary injunction or restraining order may be issued against an electric utility. The Court acknowledged that Section 9 of R.A. No. 7832 restricts such issuances unless there is prima facie evidence of bad faith or grave abuse of authority in the disconnection. However, it also pointed to another scenario where an injunction is permissible:

SEC. 9. Restriction on the Issuance of Restraining Orders or Writs of Injunction. – No writ of injunction or restraining order shall be issued by any court against any private electric utility or rural electric cooperative exercising the right and authority to disconnect electric service as provided in this Act, unless there is prima facie evidence that the disconnection was made with evident bad faith or grave abuse of authority.

If, notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a court issues an injunction or restraining order, such injunction or restraining order shall be effective only upon the filing of a bond with the court which shall be in the form of cash or a cashier’s check equivalent to the “differential billing,” penalties and other charge, or to the total value of the subject matter of the action: Provided, however, That such injunction or restraining order shall automatically be refused or, if granted, shall be dissolved upon filing by the public utility of a counterbond similar in form and amount as that above required: Provided, finally, That whenever such injunction is granted, the court issuing it shall, within ten (10) days from its issuance, submit a report to the Supreme Court setting forth in detail the grounds or reasons for its order.

The Court of Appeals, according to the Supreme Court, erred in limiting the issuance of a restraining order or injunction solely to cases involving prima facie evidence of bad faith or grave abuse of authority. The Supreme Court clarified that the filing of a bond equivalent to the differential billing provides an alternative basis for the issuance of such orders, even absent a showing of bad faith. The Court pointed out that Go had indeed filed a bond, fulfilling the requirements of Section 9 of R.A. No. 7832 and its implementing rules. This action provided a sufficient basis for the trial court to issue the writ of preliminary injunction, protecting Go’s right to continued electric service while the dispute was resolved.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of deterring electricity pilferage but emphasized that R.A. No. 7832 was not intended to strip consumers of their right to protect themselves against potentially unlawful disconnections. The Court noted that electric companies have the option to file a counterbond to dissolve an injunction, ensuring a balanced approach that protects both the consumer and the utility company. The ability to file a counterbond provides a remedy for the electric company, ensuring that their interests are protected even when an injunction is initially granted.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Leyte II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (LEYECO II) acted correctly in disconnecting Jeffrey Go’s electricity service based on a tampered meter found at his residence. The court examined whether the disconnection complied with the requirements of Republic Act No. 7832, also known as the Anti-Electricity Pilferage Act.
What does “in flagrante delicto” mean in this context?	“In flagrante delicto” means “in the very act of committing the crime.” In this case, it refers to being caught in the act of tampering with the electric meter or illegally using electricity.
Can an electric company immediately disconnect service if they find a tampered meter?	Not necessarily. The Supreme Court clarified that immediate disconnection is only justified if the consumer is caught in flagrante delicto. The mere presence of a tampered meter is insufficient for immediate disconnection without direct evidence linking the consumer to the tampering.
What is a “differential billing” and why is it important?	A “differential billing” is the amount charged to a consumer for the presumed amount of electricity illegally consumed due to tampering or other illegal means. It is important because it determines the amount of the bond required to secure an injunction against disconnection.
What is the purpose of filing a bond in this type of case?	Filing a bond, usually in the form of cash or a cashier’s check, protects the electric company’s interests by ensuring that they are compensated for the presumed pilfered electricity if the consumer is ultimately found liable. It allows the consumer to maintain electric service while the case is being resolved.
What recourse does an electric company have if an injunction is issued?	An electric company can file a counterbond, similar in form and amount to the consumer’s bond, to dissolve the injunction. This allows the company to proceed with the disconnection while the legal proceedings continue.
What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?	The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the Regional Trial Court’s order to issue a writ of injunction against LEYECO II. The Court found that the disconnection was not justified because Go was not caught in flagrante delicto, and he had filed the required bond.
Why is the presence of a barangay chairman important during an inspection?	Under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7832, a barangay chairman is considered an “officer of the law.” Their presence during an inspection can help establish prima facie evidence of illegal use of electricity if they witness the discovery of tampered meters or other illegal connections.

This ruling serves as a reminder that while electric companies have the right to protect their systems from pilferage, they must also respect the due process rights of consumers. The requirement of being caught in flagrante delicto for immediate disconnection, along with the option for consumers to post a bond, balances the interests of both parties. This ensures a fair resolution of disputes related to electricity usage.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Jeffrey T. Go vs. Leyte II Electric Cooperative, Inc., G.R. No. 176909, February 18, 2008