G.R. No. 144474. April 27, 2007.
SAMAR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., and BALTAZAR DACULA, Petitioners, vs. ESTRELLA QUIJANO, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Samar II Electric Cooperative (SAMELCO) observed a significant drop in the electricity consumption registered at the residence of spouses Norberto and Estrella Quijano. Suspecting meter tampering, SAMELCO sent an inspection team, led by co-petitioner Baltazar Dacula, to the Quijano residence on May 14, 1984. The team found the meter lacked its official seals and had an adjusted rotating disc. They then removed the meter and disconnected the electric service. Only the Quijanos’ 17-year-old daughter was present during the inspection and disconnection.
The following day, the Quijanos requested reconnection but SAMELCO demanded payment of penalty charges for the alleged tampering. The Quijanos refused to pay, insisting there was no tampering, and instead filed a Complaint for Damages against SAMELCO and Dacula with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Petitioners moved to dismiss, arguing the dispute was intra-corporate and within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the complaint for damages arising from the disconnection of electric service; and (2) whether petitioners were liable for damages under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code for their actions.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, ruling in favor of respondent Estrella Quijano. On jurisdiction, the Court held that an action for damages based on the alleged arbitrary disconnection of electrical service is within the original jurisdiction of the RTC. The Court rejected the argument that the dispute was intra-corporate or fell under the National Electrification Administration’s (NEA) jurisdiction. It clarified that P.D. No. 269 grants NEA supervisory and remedial powers over electric cooperatives but does not confer upon it adjudicatory authority over claims for damages by consumers.
On the merits, the Court found petitioners liable for damages. While SAMELCO had the right to inspect meters and disconnect service for cause, this right must be exercised in a just and lawful manner. The inspection and disconnection were conducted in the absence of the homeowners, with only a minor present, and without prior court authority or a witness from the local government, contrary to the procedural requirements for such actions. This manner of enforcement constituted an abuse of right and a violation of the Quijanos’ rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. The act of disconnection based solely on the inspection findings, done in a high-handed manner, warranted the award of actual, moral, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees, as upheld by the RTC and the Court of Appeals.