6/25/2020 JEFFREY T. GO v.

LEYTE II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

569 Phil. 518

THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 176909, February 18, 2008 ]
JEFFREY T. GO, Petitioner, vs. LEYTE II ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE, INC., Respondent.

DECISION
YNARES-SATIAGO, J.:

This petition for review on certiorari[1] assails the November 30, 2006 Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CEB-SP No. 02010 setting aside the April 4, 2006 and May 2, 2006 Orders of Branch 6 of the Regional Trial
Court of Tacloban City in Special Civil Case No. 2006-03-24, which ordered the issuance of a writ of injunction
against respondent Leyte II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (LEYECO II). Also assailed is the February 27, 2007
Resolution[3] denying the motion for reconsideration.

The facts are as follows:

Petitioner Jeffrey T. Go is a resident of Block 16, Lot 14, Imelda Village, Tacloban City. He bought the property
from Rosita Mancera, who is the registered consumer and member of respondent LEYECO II.

At about 10:20 a.m. of February 13, 2006, respondent's inspection team went to petitioner's residence to inspect
his electric meter. They requested the occupant of the house to witness the inspection but were told that the owner
was out of town. Hence, it was Barangay Chairman Jesus Alex Alusa of Barangay 36A, Imelda Village and SPO3
Glen Trinidad who witnessed the same. Upon inspection, the team discovered that the electric meter had a broken
seal, and that it had been tampered with through the installation of a shunting wire at the back of the meter
insulating terminal block.

On March 7, 2006, petitioner received from respondent a "Notice of Apprehension and Disconnection,"[4] notifying
him of the results of the inspection and his liability for violation of the Service Contract as well as Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 7832, otherwise known as "An Act Penalizing the Pilferage of Electricity and Theft of Electric Power
Transmission Lines/Materials, Rationalizing System Losses by Phasing Out Pilferage Losses as a Component
thereof, and for Other Purposes." [5] He was assessed P101,597.99 for pilferage differential billing and surcharges
and was given ten days within which to settle the amount otherwise his electric service will be disconnected.

Petitioner immediately filed a "Petition for Injunction and Damages with Preliminary Injunction with a Prayer for the
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order"[6] before the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City. He claimed that the
inspection was irregular and illegal, and that respondent had no legal basis to cause the disconnection of his
electric service.

On March 16, 2006, Executive Judge Salvador Apurillo issued a 72-hour temporary restraining order enjoining
respondent from disconnecting petitioner's electric service.[7] Thereafter, the case was raffled to Branch 6 of the

https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cae9c 1/8
6/25/2020 JEFFREY T. GO v. LEYTE II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City and was docketed as Special Civil Case No. 2006-03-24.

On March 20, 2006, the Regional Trial Court issued an order extending the 72-hour temporary restraining order to
a period of 20 days.[8] Upon hearing and petitioner's filing of a bond in an amount equivalent to the differential
billing, the trial court issued an order dated April 4, 2006,[9] granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
against respondent. Respondent moved for reconsideration but was denied.[10]

Respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which reversed and set aside the orders of
the Regional Trial Court in its November 30, 2006 Decision, as follows:

In a nutshell, private respondent failed to substantiate his allegation that the

inspection conducted by petitioner was made with evident bad faith and/or grave
abuse of authority. On the same note, We find public respondent to have gravely
abused his discretion in granting private respondent's prayer for the issuance of a writ
of injunction against petitioner.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we find the instant petition to be impressed

with merit. The assailed orders dated April 4, 2006 and May 2, 2006 rendered by
public respondent are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.[11]

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, hence this petition.

Petitioner claims that respondent failed to comply with R.A. No. 7832 when it conducted the inspection of his
electric meter; that he was not caught in flagrante delicto of illegal use of electricity; and that the issuance of a writ
of injunction against respondent was proper considering that he had filed a bond with the trial court.

On the other hand, respondent contends that the presence of a barangay chairman and a police officer during the
inspection satisfied the requirements of the law; that petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto; and that under
Section 9 of R.A. No. 7832, a writ of preliminary injunction or restraining order can be issued against a private
electric utility or rural cooperative only when there is prima facie evidence that the disconnection was made with
evident bad faith or grave abuse of authority.

The issues for resolution are as follows: 1) whether the inspection of petitioner's electric meter was in accordance
with R.A. No. 7832; 2) whether petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto; and 3) whether the writ of preliminary
injunction was properly issued against respondent LEYECO II.

We find merit in the petition.

The inspection was conducted in accordance with Section 4 of R.A. No. 7832, which states:

https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cae9c 2/8
6/25/2020 JEFFREY T. GO v. LEYTE II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

SECTION 4. Prima Facie Evidence. (a) The presence of any of the following
circumstances shall constitute prima facie evidence of illegal use of electricity, as
defined in this Act, by the person benefitted thereby, and shall be the basis for: (1) the
immediate disconnection by the electric utility to such person after due notice, x x x

xxxx

(iv) The presence of a tampered, broken, or fake seal on the meter, or mutilated,
altered, or tampered meter recording chart or graph, or computerized chart, graph or
log;

(v) The presence in any part of the building or its premises which is subject to the
control of the consumer or on the electric meter, of a current reversing transformer,
jumper, shorting and/or shunting wire, and/or loop connection or any other similar
device;

xxxx

(viii) x x x Provided, however, That the discovery of any of the foregoing

circumstances, in order to constitute prima facie evidence, must be personally
witnessed and attested to by an officer of the law or a duly authorized representative
of the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB). (Emphasis supplied)

While it is not disputed that petitioner's electric meter had a broken seal and shunting wire, petitioner claims that
the foregoing circumstances cannot be considered prima facie evidence of illegal use of electricity because the
inspection was not conducted in the presence of an "officer of the law" as contemplated under R.A. No. 7832. He
argues that only a barangay chairman witnessed the inspection, and that his presence failed to satisfy the
requirements of the law which specifies the police or the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) as competent
authority to verify the findings of a private electric utility or rural electric cooperative.

However, under Section 1[12] of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7832, an officer of the law is
defined as one "who by direct provision of the law or by election or by appointment of competent authority, is
charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property." Contrary to
petitioner's claim, the definition is not limited to members of the police force or the NBI. The rules specifically state
that a barangay chairman is considered an officer of the law. Thus, his presence during the inspection satisfies the
requirements of the law.

In any event, the records show that SPO3 Glen Trinidad likewise witnessed the inspection. Respondent submitted
a photograph[13] as evidence, and the police officer signed the Notice of Apprehension and Disconnection.[14] It is
clear therefore that the inspection was made in accordance with Section 4 of R.A. No. 7832.

We now come to the issue whether petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cae9c 3/8
6/25/2020 JEFFREY T. GO v. LEYTE II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

In flagrante delicto means "[i]n the very act of committing the crime." To be caught in flagrante delicto, therefore,
necessarily implies positive identification by the eyewitness or eyewitnesses. Such is a "direct evidence" of
culpability, or "that which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption."[15]

Respondent cites Section 6 of R.A. No. 7832 which provides that a private electric utility or rural electric
cooperative can immediately disconnect electric service after prior notice when the consumer or his representative
is caught in flagrante delicto. It reads:

SEC. 6. Disconnection of Electric Service. The private electric utility or rural

electric cooperative concerned shall have the right and authority to disconnect
immediately the electric service after serving a written notice or warning to that
effect, without the need of a court or administrative order, and deny restoration of the
same, when the owner of the house or establishment concerned or someone
acting in his behalf shall have been caught en flagrante delicto doing any of the
acts enumerated in Section 4 (a) hereof, x x x." (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)

In the instant case, it was impossible for petitioner to have been caught in the act of committing an offense
considering that he was not present during the inspection. Nor were any of his representatives at hand. The
presence of a broken seal and a shunting wire in petitioner's electric meter will not suffice to support a finding that
petitioner was in flagrante delicto. Such circumstances merely operate as prima facie evidence of illegal use of
electricity under Section 4 of R.A. No. 7832.

Absent a finding of in flagrante delicto, there is no basis for the immediate disconnection of petitioner's electric
service under Section 6 of R.A. No. 7832. Respondent's reliance on the said provision is clearly misplaced.

As to whether the writ of preliminary injunction was properly issued against respondent LEYECO II, we rule in the
affirmative.

Section 9 of R.A. No. 7832 provides that unless there is prima facie evidence that the disconnection of electric
service was made with evident bad faith or grave abuse of authority, a writ of injunction or restraining order may
not issue against any private electric utility or rural electric cooperative exercising the right and authority to
disconnect such service. However, the second paragraph of the same provision provides for another instance
when a writ of injunction or restraining order may be issued. Thus:

https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cae9c 4/8
6/25/2020 JEFFREY T. GO v. LEYTE II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

SEC. 9. Restriction on the Issuance of Restraining Orders or Writs of Injunction. No

writ of injunction or restraining order shall be issued by any court against any private
electric utility or rural electric cooperative exercising the right and authority to
disconnect electric service as provided in this Act, unless there is prima facie
evidence that the disconnection was made with evident bad faith or grave abuse of
authority.

If, notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a court issues an injunction

or restraining order, such injunction or restraining order shall be effective only
upon the filing of a bond with the court which shall be in the form of cash or a
cashier's check equivalent to the "differential billing," penalties and other
charge, or to the total value of the subject matter of the action: Provided,
however, That such injunction or restraining order shall automatically be refused or, if
granted, shall be dissolved upon filing by the public utility of a counterbond similar in
form and amount as that above required: Provided, finally, That whenever such
injunction is granted, the court issuing it shall, within ten (10) days from its issuance,
submit a report to the Supreme Court setting forth in detail the grounds or reasons for
its order. (Emphasis supplied)

Consistent with the foregoing provision, Rule VIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7832
specifically states:

https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cae9c 5/8
6/25/2020 JEFFREY T. GO v. LEYTE II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

Rule VIII

ISSUANCE OF RESTRAINING
ORDERS OR
WRITS OF INJUNCTION

Section 1. Issuance of the Writ of Injunction. Unless there is prima facie evidence that
the disconnection was made with evident bad faith or grave abuse of authority, no writ
of injunction or restraining order shall be issued by any court against any utility or
cooperative exercising the right and authority to disconnect electric service as
provided in this Rules.

Section 2. Filing of Bond/Counterbond. A writ of injunction or restraining order

issued by a court in the absence of evident bad faith or grave abuse of
authority on the part of the utility or cooperative concerned shall be effective
only when the affected person/customer files a bond with the court in the form
of cash or cashier's check equivalent to the differential billing, penalties and
other charges in cases of illegal use of electricity. Such writ of injunction or
restraining order shall automatically be refused or, if already granted, shall be
dissolved upon the filing by the utility or cooperative concerned of a counterbond
similar in form and amount as that above required. (Emphasis supplied)

The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the only instance where the court can issue a restraining order or
injunction is when there is prima facie evidence of bad faith or grave abuse of authority.[16] As the law stands, there
are two exceptions to the restriction on the issuance of restraining orders or writs of injunction, to wit: 1) when
there is prima facie evidence that the disconnection was made with evident bad faith or grave abuse of authority;
and 2) when, even in the absence of bad faith or grave abuse of authority, the electric consumer deposits a bond
with the court in the form of cash or a cashier's check equivalent to the differential billing.

In the instant case, petitioner filed a bond in the form of a cashier's check in the amount of One Hundred One
Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Seven and 99/100 (P101,597.99), the equivalent of the differential billing charged
against him by respondent in compliance with Section 9 of R.A. No. 7832 and Rule VIII of the Implementing Rules
and Regulations of R.A. No. 7832.

While the law was crafted primarily to deter the pilferage of electricity through the creation of prima facie
presumptions in certain circumstances, it was not intended to completely deprive consumers of their right to
protect themselves. It must be emphasized that the issuance of an injunction or restraining order, even in the
absence of bad faith and grave abuse of authority, provides ample protection to both the consumer and the electric
company. It does not render the law toothless because the required bond, in the form of cash or cashier's check
and in the amount of the differential billing and other charges, protects the interest of the private electric utility or
rural electric cooperative concerned.

https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cae9c 6/8
6/25/2020 JEFFREY T. GO v. LEYTE II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

Moreover, we note that respondent is not left without a remedy against the issuance of a writ of injunction. As
pointed out by petitioner, respondent can file a counterbond in order to dissolve such injunction. In Manila Electric
Company v. Navarro-Domingo,[17] we held that the electric company may avail of the remedy which is also
provided in Section 9 of R.A. No. 7832. Thus:

At all events, petitioner was not without remedy against the issuance by public
respondent of the writ. For Section 9 of still the same aforecited statute provides:

Section 9.

xxxx

If, notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a court issues an injunction or

restraining order, such injunction or restraining order shall be effective only upon the
filing of a bond with the court which shall be in the form of cash or cashier's check
equivalent to the "differential billing," penalties and other charges, or to the total value
of the subject matter of the action: Provided, however, That such injunction or
restraining order shall automatically be refused or, if granted, shall be dissolved upon
filing by the public utility of a counterbond similar in form and amount as that above
required: Provided, finally, That whenever such injunction is granted, the court issuing
it shall, within ten (10) days from its issuance, submit a report to the Supreme Court
setting forth in detail the grounds or reason for its order.[18] (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The November 30, 2006 Decision and February 27, 2007 Resolution of
the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The April 4, 2006 and May 2, 2006 Orders of Branch 6 of
the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City in Special Civil Case No. 2006-03-24 which ordered the issuance of a
writ of injunction against respondent and denied the motion for reconsideration are hereby REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

Austria-Martinez, Chico-Nazario, Nachura, and Reyes, JJ., concur.

[1] Rollo, pp. 3-18.

[2]
Id. at 20-30. Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza and concurred in by Associate Justices Isaias P.
Dicdican and Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla.

[3] Id. at 50-55.

[4] Id. at 56.

https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cae9c 7/8
6/25/2020 JEFFREY T. GO v. LEYTE II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

[5] Promulgated on December 8, 1994.

[6] CA rollo, pp. 26-34.

[7] Id. at 39-40.

[8] Id. at 41.

[9] Rollo, pp. 57-58.

[10] Id. at 59.

[11] Id. at 29.

[12] Rule III. Section 1. Prima facie evidence of illegal use of electricity. x x x

xxxx

An officer of the law is any person who by direct provision of the law or by election or by appointment of competent
authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property, such
as barangay captain, barangay chairman, barangay councilman, barangay leader, officer, or member of
Barangay Community Brigades, barangay policeman, PNP policeman, municipal councilor, municipal mayor, and
municipal fiscal.

[13] Rollo, p. 96

[14] Supra note 4.

[15] People v. Fronda, 384 Phil. 732, 744 (2000).

[16] Rollo, p. 25.

[17] G.R. No. 161893, June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA 363.

[18] Id. at 374-375.

https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cae9c 8/8