Case Summary (G.R. No. 45704)
Facts of the Case
On February 13, 2006, LEYECO II's inspection team determined that Go's electric meter was tampered with, noting a broken seal and the installation of a shunting wire. Following this inspection, Go received a Notice of Apprehension and Disconnection on March 7, 2006, which assessed him P101,597.99 for pilferage and threatened disconnection of service if the amount was not settled within ten days. In response, Go filed a petition for injunction and damages, claiming the inspection was illegal and irregular. The Regional Trial Court issued a temporary restraining order to prevent the disconnection of Go's service.
Procedural History
The case was subsequently referred to Branch 6 of the Regional Trial Court, which extended the restraining order and eventually granted a writ of preliminary injunction against LEYECO II. The electric cooperative challenged this decision in the Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court's orders, ruling that Go had failed to prove evident bad faith or grave abuse of authority in the inspection conducted by LEYECO II.
Legal Issues Presented
The core legal questions include:
- Whether the inspection of Go's electric meter complied with Republic Act No. 7832 (RA 7832).
- Whether Go was caught in flagrante delicto of illegal electricity use.
- Whether the issuance of a preliminary injunction against LEYECO II was justified.
Compliance with RA 7832
The Supreme Court found that the inspection was conducted according to Section 4 of RA 7832, which outlines the circumstances that constitute prima facie evidence of illegal use of electricity. Despite Go's argument that the inspection lacked the presence of a designated officer of the law beyond the barangay chairman, the Court reasoned that the presence of a police officer, SPO3 Glen Trinidad, satisfied the law's requirements.
Being Caught in Flagrante Delicto
In determining whether Go was caught in flagrante delicto, the Court noted that such a condition implies being caught in the act. Since Go was not present during the inspection, claims of the findings alone (the broken seal and shunting wire) could not substantiate a claim of being caught in the act. Therefore, the Court ruled that the circumstances did not provide a basis for the immediate disconnection of his service.
Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction
The Court concluded that the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction was proper. While under Section 9 of RA 7832, an injunction may be issued only with prima facie evidence of bad faith or gr
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 45704)
Case Citation
- 569 Phil. 518; 105 OG No. 3, 279 (January 19, 2009)
- G.R. No. 176909, February 18, 2008
Background
- This case is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Jeffrey T. Go against Leyte II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (LEYECO II).
- The petition challenges the November 30, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals, which set aside the orders from the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City regarding the issuance of a writ of injunction.
- The underlying issue revolves around an inspection of Go's electric meter that allegedly revealed tampering.
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner's Identity: Jeffrey T. Go, a resident of Tacloban City, acquired the property from Rosita Mancera, a registered consumer of LEYECO II.
- Inspection Incident: On February 13, 2006, LEYECO II's inspection team found Go's electric meter with a broken seal and a shunting wire.
- Notice of Apprehension: Go received a notice on March 7, 2006, assessing him for P101,597.99 for pilferage and warning of disconnection.
- Legal Action: Go filed for an injunction against LEYECO II, claiming the inspection was illegal. The Regional Trial Court initially issued a temporary restraining order, later extended to a preliminary injunction.
Court Proceedings
- Trial Court Orders: The Regional Trial Court granted the issuance of a preliminary injunction against LEYECO II after Go filed a bond equivalent to the differential