Case Digest (G.R. No. L-39019)
Facts:
Manila Electric Company and Pedro Yambao, G.R. No. L-39019, January 22, 1988, the Supreme Court Second Division, Yap, J., writing for the Court. In 1967 the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch XXIV) rendered judgment in an action by private respondents for recovery of damages for embarrassment, humiliation, wounded feelings and hurt pride caused by the disconnection of their electrical service; the trial court ordered petitioners jointly and severally to pay P10,000 as moral damages, P2,000 as exemplary damages and P1,000 as attorney’s fees, and dismissed petitioners’ counterclaim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in toto. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied and they filed the present petition for certiorari under Rule 45.The respondents are Isaac Chaves, Sr. and family; Isaac Sr., Isaac Jr., and Rosendo were lawyers (Rosendo a Legal Officer) and Juana Chaves was a teacher. The trial court found that Isaac Chaves had been a MERALCO customer since 1953 and maintained a P5 deposit that followed successive service contracts. In March–April 1965 MERALCO bill collector Pedro Yambao presented two overdue bills; Mrs. Chaves said payment would be made at MERALCO’s office. Isaac Chaves paid one bill on April 2, 1965 but left another unpaid.
MERALCO disconnected service past 2:30 p.m. on April 21, 1965. On April 22 Rosendo paid the outstanding bills in the morning, sought the help of MERALCO counsel, and service was reconnected about 7:00 p.m. Petitioners disputed the trial court’s finding that no prior written notice was given, but for purposes of the certiorari petition (which raises mainly questions of law) did not contest that factual finding before the Court.
At the Court of Appeals petitioners argued absence of bad faith (hence no moral/exemplary damages or attorney’s fees) and invoked the clean hands doctrine (relying on Mabutas v. Calapan Electric Company, CA-G.R. No. L-9583-R). The Court of Appeals held that MERALCO’s right to disconnect is subject to the regulatory requirement of a 48-hour written notice under Section 97 of the Revised Order No. 3 of the Public Service Commission, and that failure to give prior notice or premature disconnecti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion warranting relief by certiorari under Rule 45?
- Did MERALCO’s disconnection without the required prior written notice and the premature cut-off constitute a tort or bad faith sufficient to justify awards of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees?
- Does the private respondents’ delinquency in payment bar recovery of moral damag...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)