G.R. No. 26658 - Manila Electric Co. vs. Artiaga

Manila Electric Company (Meralco) filed a complaint to compel Santiago Artiaga, the City Engineer of Manila, to issue a permit.
The permit was sought to authorize the excavation and construction necessary for laying a switch and a curve on Calle Azcarraga for the installation of an additional electrical line.
The work involved was considered a new undertaking rather than a mere repair or continuation of an already authorized track.

The trial court of Manila dismissed the complaint with costs against the plaintiff.
During the trial, testimony was given by Santiago Artiaga regarding whether the proposed additional line, when viewed against a submitted plan (Exhibit A), constituted a "change or alteration" in the existing electric line.
The plaintiff objected to the manner in which this key question was posed, but the witness was nonetheless permitted to answer.

The court found that the construction of a switch and a curve on Calle Azcarraga was an entirely new undertaking, not covered by any existing ordinance.
The undertaking was held to radically alter the direction and location of the existing track rather than being a minor repair or reconstruction of an already authorized line.
As a consequence, the project was viewed as falling outside the ambit of the City Engineer’s authority to issue permits.

The trial court relied on Special Ordinance No. 44, which provided that the authority to grant permits for changes affecting the electric line lies with the Municipal Board, not with Santiago Artiaga as city engineer.
The plaintiff’s application for permission, if considered a new construction that fundamentally altered the existing setup, should have been directed to the Municipal Board pursuant to Section 24 of the ordinance and not via the engineer as per Section 1043 of the Revised Ordinances of Manila.

The admissibility of the testimony given by Santiago Artiaga regarding the proposed changes.
The characterization of connecting the existing line to an adjacent property via a switch and curve as constituting a change in the line.
The requirement for obtaining the consent of the Municipal Board rather than the City Engineer.
The dismissal of the complaint.
The overruling of the motion for a new trial.

The appellate court noted that the evidence relied upon by the plaintiff at trial was not re-introduced in the appellate proceedings, thereby necessitating reliance on the trial court’s factual findings.

Whether the trial court erred in allowing witness Santiago Artiaga to answer a question that probed if the proposed additional line constituted a change or alteration in the existing line, despite the plaintiff’s objection.

Whether the connection of the plaintiff’s existing line with an adjacent property, through the installation of a switch and curve, should be deemed as a change in the existing line.
Whether such a construction falls under the ambit of a mere repair or constitutes a fundamentally new undertaking.

Whether the permit for the proposed construction (switch and curve) should be issued by the City Engineer or by the Municipal Board of Manila.
If the undertaking is indeed new and radically alters the electric line, whether Section 1043 (applying to the engineer) or Section 24 of Special Ordinance No. 44 (applying to the Municipal Board) should govern.

Whether the dismissal of the complaint and the overruling of the motion for a new trial were erroneous.
Whether the decision of the lower court, particularly the interlocutory order sustaining the demurrer, constitutes res judicata considering the finality of the judgment on merits.