GR 145399; (March, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 145399 ; March 17, 2006
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), Petitioner, vs. ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD (ERB), and EDGAR L. TI, doing business under the name and style of ELT ENTERPRISE, Respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Edgar L. Ti filed a complaint with the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) against MERALCO after the latter partially disconnected his electric service and seized three meters on suspicion of tampering. Ti alleged the disconnection was unlawful, conducted without proper notice, and caused him irreparable damage. He prayed for a provisional order for reconnection pending the hearing of his complaint. The ERB granted this provisional relief in an Order dated October 22, 1999, directing reconnection and requiring MERALCO to comment.
MERALCO moved for reconsideration, arguing that its inspection revealed prima facie evidence of meter tampering under Republic Act No. 7832 (the Anti-Pilferage Act), which legally warranted immediate disconnection. It contended that the ERB lacked jurisdiction to order reconnection in such cases, as authority was vested solely in the regular courts, especially since MERALCO had already filed a criminal complaint for violation of R.A. 7832. The ERB denied the motion, asserting its jurisdiction to provide consumers a complete and speedy remedy against public utilities.
ISSUE
Whether the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint for reconnection of electric service allegedly disconnected due to violations of R.A. No. 7832 , and the authority to issue a provisional order for such reconnection.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and upheld the ERB’s jurisdiction and authority. The legal logic rests on the ERB’s statutory mandate as the specialized regulatory body for the energy sector. Created under Executive Order No. 172, the ERB is the successor of the Public Service Commission and inherited its broad regulatory and adjudicatory powers over public utilities, including the authority to hear and decide complaints between consumers and utilities.
The Court clarified that R.A. 7832 does not divest the ERB of this jurisdiction. While the law grants utilities the right to disconnect service upon finding prima facie evidence of pilferage, it does not strip the ERB of its power to adjudicate disputes arising from such disconnections. The ERB’s jurisdiction complements the criminal aspects of R.A. 7832. Its authority to issue provisional relief, such as a reconnection order, is inherent in its adjudicative function to provide immediate relief pending resolution of the main complaint. This ensures consumers have access to a speedy administrative remedy without precluding parallel criminal proceedings. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the ERB’s exercise of this power under the circumstances.