This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-02-10 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The distribution of electricity is a basic necessity that is imbued with public interest. Its provider is considered as a public utility subject to the strict regulation by the State in the exercise of its police power. Failure to comply with these regulations gives rise to the presumption of bad faith or abuse of right.[9] | |||||
|
2008-03-04 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Article 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. In the present case, MERALCO wilfully caused injury to Leoncio Ramoy by withholding from him and his tenants the supply of electricity to which they were entitled under the Service Contract. This is contrary to public policy because, as discussed above, MERALCO, being a vital public utility, is expected to exercise utmost care and diligence in the performance of its obligation. It was incumbent upon MERALCO to do everything within its power to ensure that the improvements built by respondents are within the NPC's right of way before disconnecting their power supply. The Court emphasized in Samar II Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Quijano[14] that:Electricity is a basic necessity the generation and distribution of which is imbued with public interest, and its provider is a public utility subject to strict regulation by the State in the exercise of police power. Failure to comply with these regulations will give rise to the presumption of bad faith or abuse of right. [15] (Emphasis supplied) Thus, by analogy, MERALCO's failure to exercise utmost care and diligence in the performance of its obligation to Leoncio Ramoy, its customer, is tantamount to bad faith. Leoncio Ramoy testified that he suffered wounded feelings because of MERALCO's actions.[16] Furthermore, due to the lack of power supply, the lessees of his four apartments on subject lot left the premises.[17] Clearly, therefore, Leoncio Ramoy is entitled to moral damages in the amount awarded by the CA. | |||||
|
2007-12-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The law in force at the time material to this controversy was Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 401[39] issued on March 1, 1974.[40] The decree penalized unauthorized installation of water, electrical or telephone connections and such acts as the use of tampered electrical meters. It was issued in answer to the urgent need to put an end to illegal activities that prejudice the economic well-being of both the companies concerned and the consuming public.[41] P.D. 401 granted the electric companies the right to conduct inspections of electric meters and the criminal prosecution[42] of erring consumers who were found to have tampered with their electric meters. It did not expressly provide for more expedient remedies such as the charging of differential billing and immediate disconnection against erring consumers. Thus, electric companies found a creative way of availing themselves of such remedies by inserting into their service contracts (or agreements for the sale of electric energy) a provision for differential billing with the option of disconnection upon non-payment by the erring consumer. The Court has recognized the validity of such stipulations.[43] However, recourse to differential billing with disconnection was subject to the prior requirement of a 48-hour written notice of disconnection.[44] | |||||