G.R. No. 45353; June 27, 1938
SIO CHU TIAN, petitioner-appellee, vs. MANILA ELECTRIC CO., respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Sio Chu Tian refused to install, at his own expense, a “B-X flexible cable” for the electrical service entrance at his house, as required by a regulation of the Manila Electric Company (Meralco). He argued his existing “open installation” had been approved by the city’s chief electrician. Meralco consequently cut off his electric service. The Public Service Commission ordered service restored and, after hearing, held Meralco had no just cause to deprive Sio of service. Meralco’s regulation, which mandated the use of B-X cable, service entrance cable, or rigid conduit, was filed with but not approved by the Commission.

ISSUE

May Meralco, as a matter of right, demand that a consumer install and pay for a “B-X flexible cable” as a condition for electric service?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Public Service Commission’s decision. The testimony of the city’s chief electrician established that while the B-X cable was desirable and offered greater safety, the existing “open installation” was sufficient to protect life and property. The primary purpose of the required cable was to protect Meralco’s interests by preventing theft of electric current. Therefore, it was inequitable to shift this expense to the consumer, who derived no additional benefit in terms of service. If Meralco desired the use of such cables, it could install them at its own expense. The Court found no error in the Commission’s ruling.

AI Generated by Armztrong.