Title
Go vs. Leyte II Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 176909
Decision Date
Feb 18, 2008
Jeffrey Go contested LEYECO II's disconnection notice for alleged electricity pilferage. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, finding the inspection valid but insufficient to prove in flagrante delicto, reinstating the injunction due to compliance with bond requirements.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 196539)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Property
    • Petitioner Jeffrey T. Go is a resident of Block 16, Lot 14, Imelda Village, Tacloban City.
    • Petitioner purchased his property from Rosita Mancera, who is the registered consumer and member of respondent Leyte II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (LEYECO II).
  • Inspection of the Electric Meter
    • On February 13, 2006, at about 10:20 a.m., an inspection team from LEYECO II visited the petitioner’s residence to examine his electric meter.
      • The team sought the presence of the owner during the inspection; however, petitioner was out of town.
      • The inspection was witnessed instead by Barangay Chairman Jesus Alex Alusa of Barangay 36A, Imelda Village and police officer SPO3 Glen Trinidad.
    • Findings during the inspection:
      • The electric meter exhibited a broken seal.
      • There was evidence of tampering – a shunting wire was installed at the back of the meter insulating terminal block.
  • Administrative and Judicial Actions Following the Inspection
    • On March 7, 2006, petitioner received a Notice of Apprehension and Disconnection from LEYECO II.
      • The notice informed him of the inspection results.
      • Petitioner was assessed P101,597.99 for pilferage differential billing and surcharges.
      • A deadline of ten days was set for payment to avoid disconnection of electric service.
    • Petitioner immediately responded by filing a petition with the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City.
      • The petition sought an injunction and damages.
      • It included a request for a temporary restraining order, arguing that the inspection was irregular and illegal, and that there was no legal basis for the disconnection.
  • Procedural Developments in Lower Courts
    • On March 16, 2006, Executive Judge Salvador Apurillo issued a 72-hour temporary restraining order enjoining LEYECO II from disconnecting the electric service.
    • The case was subsequently transferred (raffled) to Branch 6 of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City and docketed as Special Civil Case No. 2006-03-24.
    • On March 20, 2006, the Regional Trial Court extended the temporary restraining order to a period of 20 days.
    • On April 4, 2006, after petitioner filed a bond equivalent to the differential billing, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction against LEYECO II.
    • LEYECO II’s motion for reconsideration of the writ was denied, prompting further legal action.
  • Appeal and Arguments
    • LEYECO II filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.
      • The Court of Appeals, in a November 30, 2006 decision, set aside the injunction orders delivered by the Regional Trial Court.
      • The appellate court held that petitioner’s claim of irregular inspection was unsubstantiated and found that there was a grave abuse of discretion in allowing the injunction.
    • Petitioner’s arguments on appeal:
      • Claiming that LEYECO II failed to comply with Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7832 in the inspection process.
      • Arguing that he was not caught in flagrante delicto of illegal electricity use.
      • Asserting that the issuance of the writ of injunction was proper since he had secured the petition by filing a bond.
    • Respondent’s arguments:
      • Contending that the presence of a barangay chairman and a police officer during the inspection fulfilled the legal requirements.
      • Asserting that petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto.
      • Relying on Section 9 of R.A. No. 7832, which limits the issuance of a writ of injunction to circumstances having prima facie evidence of evident bad faith or grave abuse of authority.
  • Supreme Court Resolution
    • The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals decision.
    • It reinstated the Regional Trial Court orders (from April 4 and May 2, 2006) that had ordered the issuance of the injunction against LEYECO II.
    • The Court clarified the application of R.A. No. 7832 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations regarding the inspection, disconnection, and issuance of injunctions.

Issues:

  • Legality of the Inspection Under R.A. No. 7832
    • Was the inspection of petitioner’s electric meter conducted in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 4 of R.A. No. 7832?
    • Does the presence of a barangay chairman and a police officer during the inspection satisfy the statutory mandate of an “officer of the law”?
  • Caught in Flagrante Delicto
    • Was petitioner caught in flagrante delicto, that is, in the very act of committing the offense of illegal electricity use?
    • Is the mere discovery of a broken seal and a shunting wire sufficient to establish that petitioner was engaged in an unlawful act without being physically present during the incident?
  • Issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction
    • Was the issuance of the writ of injunction against LEYECO II proper under Section 9 of R.A. No. 7832 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations?
    • Specifically, did the filing of a bond by petitioner serve as a lawful exception to the general prohibition against issuing an injunction or restraining order in the absence of prima facie evidence of blatant misconduct by the electric cooperative?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms