G.R. No. 161893 ; June 27, 2006
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. HON. LORNA NAVARRO-DOMINGO, in her capacity as the Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 201, Las Piñas, and CARMENCITA B. LOTA, Respondents.

FACTS

MERALCO inspectors discovered an illegal two-line “jumper” using a stolen meter at respondent Carmencita B. Lota’s residence on November 10, 2003. They confiscated the device, served a Notice of Disconnection, and demanded payment of P1,302,239.25 for alleged unregistered consumption from November 2000 to November 2003. Upon Lota’s refusal to pay, MERALCO disconnected her electric service. Lota filed a complaint for reconnection with a prayer for a preliminary mandatory injunction before the RTC.
The RTC, through respondent Judge, issued an order directing the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction upon Lota’s posting of a P10,000 bond. MERALCO moved for reconsideration, arguing the disconnection was lawful under Republic Act No. 7832 (Anti-Pilferage Act) and that the injunction bond should equal the differential billing claim of over P1.3 million, not merely P10,000. The RTC denied the motion.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and in fixing the injunction bond at only P10,000.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. The Court held that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. Under Section 6 of R.A. No. 7832 , an electric utility has the right to disconnect service immediately upon discovery of illegal use of electricity. The law provides a specific remedy, and the disconnection by MERALCO was prima facie lawful, having been conducted with a police officer present and with subsequent notice. A preliminary mandatory injunction, which commands the performance of an act, is improper when the right of the applicant is not clear and undisputed. Lota’s right to reconnection was not clear given the prima facie evidence of illegal use.
Furthermore, the RTC gravely abused its discretion in fixing the bond at only P10,000. Section 7 of R.A. No. 7832 explicitly requires that the injunction bond must be “equal to the differential billing, penalties and other charges” claimed by the utility. The court has no discretion to set a lower amount. The mandatory language of the law was disregarded, rendering the bond grossly insufficient to secure MERALCO’s claim for over P1.3 million in differential billing. The orders were issued in violation of the law and constituted grave abuse of discretion.