GR 176909; (February, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 176909 ; February 18, 2008
JEFFREY T. GO, petitioner, vs. LEYTE II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Jeffrey T. Go purchased a property in Tacloban City where the electric service was registered under the previous owner, a member of respondent Leyte II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (LEYECO II). On February 13, 2006, an LEYECO II inspection team, finding the petitioner absent, conducted an inspection of the electric meter witnessed by the Barangay Chairman and a police officer. The inspection revealed a broken meter seal and a shunting wire, indicating tampering. Consequently, LEYECO II sent Go a “Notice of Apprehension and Disconnection,” assessing him over P101,000 for pilferage differential billing and threatening disconnection.
Go filed a Petition for Injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing the inspection was illegal and the disconnection had no basis. The RTC granted a writ of preliminary injunction upon Go’s filing of a bond equivalent to the differential billing. LEYECO II challenged this via certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC, finding no evidence of bad faith or grave abuse of authority by LEYECO II to warrant the injunction.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the RTC properly issued the writ of preliminary injunction against LEYECO II’s disconnection of electric service.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the RTC’s orders granting the injunction. The legal logic centers on the proper application of Section 9 of Republic Act No. 7832 (Anti-Electricity Pilferage Act). The Court clarified that under this provision, a disconnection based on prima facie evidence of pilferage—such as the broken seal and shunting wire found here—can be enjoined by a court through a preliminary injunction if the consumer posts a cash or cashier’s check bond equivalent to the differential billing and other charges.
The Court found that petitioner Go complied with this statutory requirement by filing the requisite bond. Consequently, the issuance of the injunction by the RTC was mandatory under the law, not discretionary. The Court emphasized that Section 9 of R.A. 7832 establishes a specific procedure for injunctive relief in disconnection cases, which the RTC correctly followed. The CA erred in requiring a separate showing of “evident bad faith or grave abuse of authority” by the electric cooperative as a precondition for the injunction; that standard applies to other remedies, not to the injunction specifically governed by Section 9. Therefore, upon compliance with the bond requirement, the injunction was properly issued.