Title
Manila Electric Co. vs. Public Service Commission
Case
G.R. No. 42317
Decision Date
Sep 21, 1934
Meralco challenged Public Service Commission's order requiring pre-approval of reconnection regulations. Court ruled no presumption of unjust regulations, burden of proof on challenger, and Commission exceeded authority; order nullified.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 9717)

Petitioner and Respondent

The petitioner, the Manila Electric Company, filed a petition for certiorari against the Public Service Commission, challenging a directive issued by the Commission on July 24, 1934. This directive required the Manila Electric Company to refrain from enforcing a specific regulation regarding reconnection of service to customers who had previously been disconnected for non-payment of electric bills.

Decision and Regulation

The regulation in question stated that customers without a sufficient outstanding deposit to guarantee their electric service would not be reconnected after disconnection until all arrears were paid, and a deposit equivalent to two months’ estimated consumption was made. This deposit would bear interest and could be refunded after one year if bills were paid on time.

Legal Framework

The case draws from the provisions in Act No. 3108, particularly Section 16 subsection (c), which prohibits public utilities from enforcing regulations that are unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory. The core issue revolves around whether a presumption exists that rules enforced by public utilities are unjust or unreasonable.

Presumption of Compliance

The court examined whether there is a legal presumption that regulations adopted by public service companies are inherently unjust or unreasonable. The court concluded that no such presumption exists within the legal framework of Act No. 3108 or any related provisions. It referenced Section 334 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides a disputable presumption that the law is obeyed, implying that the Manila Electric Company was in compliance with said statute.

Burden of Proof

Given the established presumption of compliance, the burden of proof falls on those contesting the regulation to demonstrate its alleged injustice or unreasonableness. As a result, the directive from the Public Service Commission, which required the petitioner to affirmatively prove the reasonableness of its measures, was deemed a violation of procedural law.

Authority of the Public Service Commission

The court then analyzed the authority of the Public Service Commission concerning the requirement for prior approval of utility regulations. While the Commission has supervisory power over public utilities, the Act does not mandate that all regulations be submitted for a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.