[54] MERALCO v.

ERB that pending hearing of his complaint, electric service be restored in his
G.R. No. 145399 | March 17, 2006 | Garcia, J. establishment.
● In an Order dated October 22, 1999, the ERB, by way of provisional relief,
TOPIC: Regulation of Public Utilities -> Other Means of Regulation ordered the desired reconnection of electric service and, at the same,
directed MERALCO to submit its comment on the complaint.
SUMMARY: Private Respondent EDGAR L. TI filed a case before Respondent ERB ○ MERALCO moved for a reconsideration of the aforementioned
alleging that Petitioner MERALCO unlawfully disconnected the electric service in his provisional reconnection order, alleging that an inspection
business establishment on mere suspicion of meter tampering. ERB ordered the conducted by its service inspectors accompanied by elements of
reconnection of the electric service. MERALCO argued that ERB was without the Philippine National Police found Ti to have tampered three (3)
jurisdiction to issue a provisional relief and order the restoration of electric service, electric meters installed in his business premises by manipulating
that authority being vested only on regular courts. The COURT held that the ERB does the dial pointers thereof. The fraudulent act of Ti, according to
have jurisdiction and gave various reasons basically all pertaining to the same idea. MERALCO, constituted a violation of R.A. No. 7832 (“Anti-Electricity
and Electric Transmission Lines/Materials Pilfering Act of 1994”)
DOCTRINE: Jurisdiction is conferred by law. Corollary to this basic postulate is the legally warranting the immediate disconnection of the electric
general rule that the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal over the subject matter is supply on his establishment.
determined by the allegations in the complaint or petition and not in those of the ○ MERALCO further argued that the ERB is without jurisdiction to
defendant's answer or similar responsive pleading. issue a provisional relief and order the restoration of electric
service, that authority being vested only on regular courts.
The ERB, by force of the aforecited Sections 13 and 17(a) of C.A. No 146, as ○ MERALCO instituted a criminal complaint against Ti for violation of
amended, in relation to Section 14 of E.O. No. 172, has jurisdiction, control and R.A. No. 7832 before the Prosecutor's Office of Rizal. [still pending
supervision over all public services, their franchises and properties, with power to resolution]
investigate any matter respecting its jurisdiction and to require any public service to ● On December 27, 1999, the ERB denied MERALCO's MR, virtually reiterating
furnish safe, adequate and proper service as the public interest may require. the reconnection directive contained in its earlier Order:
○ [Petitioner MERALCO's] contention that this Board has no
FACTS: jurisdiction over the subject matter of the instant complaint, which is
● On October 18, 1999, herein private respondent EDGAR L. TI, doing business the restoration of the partial shutdown of the electric service to
under, the name and style ELT Enterprise, filed a verified complaint 3 before complainant's building, cannot be upheld. The law gives consumers
the ERB against petitioner Manila Electric Company (MERALCO). He alleged who have a cause of grievance against any public utility, such as
that that MERALCO: herein [petitioner] MERALCO, a complete, speedy and adequate
○ unlawfully disconnected partially the electric service in his remedy. That is the purpose of Commonwealth Act No. 146, as
business establishment located at Little Baguio, San Juan, Metro amended, creating the Public Service Commission, this Board's
Manila predecessor office, and prescribing its duties and powers, and the
○ seized three (3) of his electric meters on mere suspicion of meter reason why it was enacted…
tampering. ● MERALCO went to the CA on a petition for certiorari, assailing as having
● To make things worse, Ti alleged that the notice of disconnection was been issued without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, the ERB's
served at night, while the actual disconnection was not done in the presence orders dated October 22, 1999 and December 27, 1999. On September 22,
of the owner of ELT Enterprise or his representative. The unauthorized 2000, the CA rejected MERALCO’s imputation and affirmed the ERB’s twin
disconnection, Ti claimed, has caused him great damage which, if not assailed orders.
immediately addressed, would result to irreparable injury. He thus prayed
ISSUE w/ HOLDING & RATIO: ● It bears to reiterate that the ERB, by force of the aforecited Sections 13 1 and
W/N public respondent ERB has jurisdiction to order the reconnection of electric 17(a)2 of C.A. No 146, as amended, in relation to Section 14 3 of E.O. No. 172,
service in cases arising from alleged violation of R.A. No. 7832? — YES. has jurisdiction, control and supervision over all public services, their
● Petitioner MERALCO, being an electric service provider, is under the franchises and properties, with power to investigate any matter respecting
regulatory jurisdiction and supervision of the ERB. its jurisdiction and to require any public service to furnish safe, adequate and
proper service as the public interest may require.
To determine the ERB's jurisdiction, a look at the legislative history of the regulatory ● To us, the power of control and supervision over public utilities would
agencies preceding it is apropos. [you can probably skip this part, including it just in otherwise be a meaningless delegation were the ERB is precluded from
case sir asks] requiring a public utility to reconnect pending the determination of propriety
● The first regulatory body, the Board of Rate Regulation (BRR), was created of the disconnection.
by virtue of Act No. 1779. Its regulatory mandate under Section 5 of the law
was limited to fixing or regulating rates of every public service corporation. There can be no quibbling that the ERB may investigate and ascertain the propriety of
● In 1913, Act No. 2307 19 created the Board of Public Utility Commissioners the disconnection due to an alleged violation of R.A. No. 7832. Necessarily, in the
(BPUC) to take over the functions of the BRR. By express provision of Act course of such investigation, the ERB may, if factually and legally justified, order the
No. 2307, the BPUC was vested with jurisdiction, supervision and control electric service provider, petitioner MERALCO in this instance, to reconnect the
over all public utilities and their properties and franchises. consumer's, private respondent's in this case, power supply and resume service.
● On November 7, 1936, Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 146, or the Public ● Compelling the complaining consumer to still go to court to secure, if proper,
Service Act (PSA), was passed creating the Public Service Commission a reconnection order, as petitioner's line of argument urges, would be
(PSC) to replace the BPUC. Like the BPUC, the PSC was expressly granted reading into R.A. No. 7832 something not written therein.
jurisdiction, supervision and control over public services, with the
concomitant authority of calling on the public force to exercise its power. [IMPORTANT] Under Section 6 itself of R.A. No. 7832, the right and authority of a
● Then came Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1, reorganizing the national private electric utility to immediately disconnect an electric service upon written
government and implementing the Integrated Reorganization Plan. Under the notice or warning to a customer may be done "without the need of a court or
reorganization plan, jurisdiction, supervision and control over public services administrative order."
related to electric light, and power heretofore vested in the PSC were
transferred to the Board of Power and Waterworks (BOPW). Later, P.D. No.
1206 21 abolished the BOPW. Its powers and function relative to power 1 SEC. 13. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Commission shall have general
utilities, including its authority to grant provisional relief, 22 were transferred supervision and regulation of, jurisdiction and control over, all public utilities, and also over
their property, property rights, equipment, facilities and franchises so far as may be necessary
to the newly-created Board of Energy (BOE). for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act, and in the exercise of its authority it
● On May 8, 1987, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued E.O. No. 172 shall have the necessary powers and the aid of the public force xxx xxx xxx.
reconstituting the BOE into the ERB, transferring the former's functions and
powers under P.D. No. 1206 to the latter 23 and consolidating in and 2 Section 17(a), the PSC has the power even without prior hearing –
(a) To investigate, upon its own initiative, or upon complaint in writing, any matter concerning
entrusting on the ERB "all the regulatory and adjudicatory functions covering any public service as regards matters under its jurisdiction; to require any public service to
the energy sector." furnish safe, adequate and proper service as the public interest may require and warrant, to
enforce compliance with any standard, rule, regulation, order or other requirement of this Act or
of the Commission, xxx.
It is fairly clear from the foregoing that the ERB can properly take cognizance of
respondent Ti's complaint for reconnection of electric service in ERB Case No. 99- 3 Section 14 of C.A. No. 146 defines the term "public service" or "public utility" as including
67, touching as it does on the obligation of a public utility to supply adequate "every individual, copartnership, association, corporation or joint-stock company, . . . that now or
hereafter may own, operate, manage or control within the Philippines, for hire or compensation,
electricity and proper service to the consuming public. any common carrier, xxx xxx, electric light, heat, power, xxx xxx, when owned, operated and
managed for public use or service within the Philippines xxx xxx."
 ● Inferentially, the express mention of an "administrative order" under the ● SEC. 8. Authority to Grant Provisional Relief. — The [Energy Regulatory] Board
aforequoted provision negates MERALCO's principal submission that only may, upon the filing of an application, petition or complaint or at any stage
the regular courts may issue orders in matters involving violations of R.A. thereafter and without prior hearing, on the basis of supporting papers duly
No. 7832. And more specifically in the subject of disconnection, the verified or authenticated, grant provisional relief on motion of a party in the
legislature thereby implicitly recognized the participation of an case or on its own initiative, without prejudice to a final decision after
administrative body although a public utility need not secure a prior order, hearing, should the Board find that the pleadings, together with such
whether from the court or from the former, in order to effect a disconnection. affidavits, documents and other evidence which may be submitted in support
● Had the intention of Congress been to vest exclusively on the regular courts of the motion, substantially support the provisional order: . . . .
cases involving violation of R.A. No. 7832, there is simply no sense for it to ● The ERB is endowed with the authority to hear and adjudicate complaints for
include the term "administrative order" in Section 6. reconnection of electric service and to grant provisional or ancillary relief
during the pendency of the main action. At bottom then, the ERB did no more
The criminal aspect of the alleged violation of R.A. No. 7832 is of course a different than to exercise its legal mandate when it ordered petitioner MERALCO to
matter. A circumspect look at E.O. No. 172 yields no indication that the ERB's immediately restore the electric service at respondent Ti's business
jurisdiction extends to adjudication of criminal complaints for infringement of R.A. establishment pending hearing of the main case.
No. 7832. ● The Court finds the ERB's provisional action to be both factually and legally
● While a complaint for reconnection of a customer's electric service is justified. Hence, the imputation of grave abuse of discretion on its part is
interrelated to the criminal action for violation of R.A. No. 7832, the without leg to stand on.
determination of the propriety of the reconnection remains distinct and
independent from the criminal action. RULING: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the assailed decision of the
● The dominant and primordial objective of a criminal prosecution is the Court of Appeals dated September 22, 2000 is AFFIRMED.
punishment of the offender, while a complaint for reconnection is intended
merely to address a consumer's grievance against an electric service
provider with respect to the generation, transmission and supply of electric
service. In fact, any determination or ruling in the reconnection case is
without prejudice to the criminal liability which may be imposed in the
criminal action.
● There is absolutely no conflict between the exercise by the ERB of its
power to entertain a complaint for reconnection of electric service and the
regular court's jurisdiction to entertain and act on a criminal action against
private respondent Ti for violation of R.A. No. 7832. The reason therefor is
not hard to discern: a criminal action affects the social order while an action
for reconnection of electric service pertains to the public utility's obligation
to provide public service which partakes of the nature of a civil action and
affects private rights.

On WON it is within the ERB’s power to grant provisional relief: Section 8 of E.O. No.
172 explicitly vests on the ERB, as an incident to its principal functions, the authority
to grant provisional relief, thus: