Title
Source: Supreme Court
BF Homes, Inc. vs. Manila Electric Co.
Case
G.R. No. 171624
Decision Date
Dec 6, 2010
BF Homes and PWCC sought injunction against MERALCO's disconnection of electric supply, claiming refund entitlement. SC ruled ERC had exclusive jurisdiction, dismissing the case.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 171624)

Background of the Dispute

On June 23, 2003, BF Homes and PWCC filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Meralco, invoking their right to a refund based on a prior Supreme Court ruling. The dispute centers on a mandated refund from Meralco to its customers following Supreme Court decisions that required Meralco to refund excess billing amounts starting from February 1998, amounting to PHP 11,834,570.91 owed to the petitioners.

Allegations Against Meralco

The petitioners claimed that Meralco disconnected electric supply to their water pumps on May 20, 2003, without prior notice, disrupting water delivery to their customers. They further alleged that Meralco's actions displayed bad faith, particularly in denying their requests to apply electric bills against the refund amount owed. Additionally, Meralco threatened further disconnections, asserting a right to demand payment for outstanding bills totaling PHP 4,717,768.15.

Petition for Injunctive Relief

The petitioners sought a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent Meralco from cutting off electricity to their water pumps, arguing that the disconnection would result in irreparable harm to their water supply services and lead to potential social unrest in the community. The RTC initially granted the injunction, recognizing the fundamental right to water access and the community's need for uninterrupted water service.

Meralco's Defense and Counterclaims

In its defense, Meralco argued that it is a public utility company entitled to discontinue service for non-payment of electric bills, as stipulated in their service agreements with the petitioners. Meralco maintained that the RTC lacked jurisdiction in the matter, citing that issues regarding rates and service disputes fall under the jurisdiction of the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC). Meralco counterclaimed for outstanding payments and sought moral, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.

RTC's Ruling

The RTC ruled in favor of BF Homes and PWCC, agreeing that the disconnection would cause irreparable injury and thus granted the injunction. Meralco's motion for reconsideration was denied, with the RTC reiterating its position on the necessity of the injunction to protect the community's right to water.

Court of Appeals Decision

Meralco subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC's decision, ruling that the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the matter. The appellate court emphasized that the ERC held exclusive jurisdiction over rate disputes and service discontinuations. The court found that the issue required technical adjudication by the ERC, invoking the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

Supreme Court Proceedings

BF Homes and PWCC appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in declaring that the RTC lacked jurisdiction. They asserted that their request for injunctive relief was a separate issue from the merits of the underlying case and should be addressed by the RTC.

Supreme Court's Final Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, citing the principle that jurisdiction lies

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.