Case Digest (G.R. No. 176909)
Facts:
Petitioner Jeffrey T. Go bought the property of a registered consumer and member of respondent Leyte II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (LEYECO II) in Tacloban City. On February 13, 2006, LEYECO II’s inspection team found petitioner’s electric meter had a broken seal and a shunting wire, which a barangay chairman and SPO3 Glen Trinidad witnessed; petitioner later received a Notice of Apprehension and Disconnection and was assessed P101,597.99, with a ten-day period to settle or face disconnection.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Injunction and Damages with a temporary restraining order, and after raffling to Branch 6 of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City, the court issued a writ of preliminary injunction on April 4, 2006 after petitioner posted a cashiers check bond in the amount of the differential billing. The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the RTC orders, holding grave abuse in issuing the injunction, and denied reconsideration; hence, petitioner’s review by certiorari.
Issues:
- Whether the inspection of petitioner’s electric meter complied with R.A. No. 7832.
- Whether petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto.
- Whether the writ of preliminary injunction was properly issued against LEYECO II.
Ruling:
The Court held that the inspection complied with Section 4 of R.A. No. 7832, because the tampered meter circumstances were personally witnessed and attested to by an officer of the law, which includes a barangay chairman under the implementing rules, and the inspection was likewise witnessed by a police officer.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that petitioner was not caught in flagrante delicto because he was absent during the inspection and no representative was present; the tampered seal and shunting wire, standing alone, only establish prima facie evidence of illegal use under Section 4. On the third issue, the Court found the injunction properly issued: Section 9 of R.A. No. 7832 permits an injunction even absent evident bad faith or grave abuse of authority when the consumer deposits a bond equivalent to the differential billing, and LEYECO II could file a counterbond to dissolve the injunction.
Ratio:
The Court applied Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 7832, which treats specific tampering circumstances as prima facie evidence only when personally witnessed and attested to by an officer of the law or a duly authorized ERB representative, and it construed the term “officer of the law” in the implementing rules to include barangay officials and members of lawful community security structures. The presence of the barangay chairman and SPO3 Glen Trinidad, together with the signed notice, satisfied the statutory witnessing requirement.
With respect to flagrante delicto, the Court stressed that it requires being caught in the very act through positive identification by eyewitnesses, and it found no basis to treat the tampered meter findings as proof that petitioner, or anyone acting for him, committed the acts enumerated in Section 4(a) in their presence. Finally, it held that the Court of Appeals erred in reading Section 9 as allowing injunction only upon proof of evident bad faith or grave abuse; the statute’s second paragraph and the implementing Rule VIII recognize a separate exception when the consumer files the required bond, which protects both the consumer and the utility because the utility may post a counterbond.
Doctrine:
- Under Section 4 of R.A. No. 7832, tampered meter circumstances constitute prima facie evidence of illegal use only if personally witnessed and attested to by an officer of the law or an ERB-authorized representative.
- (Get Pro to unlock 3 more doctrines)