Joe Pallugna THIS case is fairly common among us electric consumers who hold the end of the stick of abuse by some electric company employees who disconnect power supply to homes in an abusive manner. This is the case of spouses Patricia and Sulpicio Ramos in Tondo, Manila. While Patricia and her husband were out of their house working, Meralco employees came to cut off the electric supply to their house. Meralco asserted that when their service inspector came to the house of the Ramos spouses, they discovered an outside connection attached to a Meralco electric meter. They then considered it as Pilferage or theft of electricity and Meralco assessed Ramos for P179,231.70 as differential billing, and when Ramos failed to pay this, they have to immediately cut off the electric supply. The Rams spouses demanded the reconnection of the power supply and when Meralco refused, Ramos filed a case in court for Breach of Contract with Preliminary Injunction and Damages. Meralco lost in the RTC, which judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which decision awarded P1.5 million in Moral Damages to Ramos, plus P100,000 as actual or compensatory damages, among other awarded sums. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the High Tribunal ruled in the case of Manila Electric Company versus Spouses Sulpicio and Patricia Ramos, G.R. No. 195145, Feb. 10, 2016) that: “The core issue in this case is whether Meralco had the right to immediately disconnect the electric service of the respondents upon discovery of an outside connection attached to their electric meter. The distribution of electricity is a basic necessity that is imbued with public interest. Its provider is considered a public utility subject to strict regulation by the State in the exercise of its police power. Failure to comply with these regulations gives rise to the presumption of bad faith or abuse of right. Nevertheless, the State also recognizes that electricity is the property of the service provider. RA 7832 was enacted by Congress to afford electric service providers multiple remedies to protect themselves from electricity pilferage. These remedies include the immediate disconnection of the electric service of the erring customer, criminal prosecution, and the imposition of surcharges. However, the service provider must avail of any or all of these remedies within the legal bounds, in strict compliance with the requirements and or conditions set forth by law.” And what are these requirements and conditions? The Supreme Court further pronounced that: “This Court has repeatedly stressed the significance of the presence of an authorized government representative during an inspection of electric facilities, viz: “The presence of government agents who may authorize immediate disconnections go into the essence of due process. Indeed, we cannot allow respondent to act virtually as prosecutor and judge in imposing the penalty of disconnection due to alleged meter tampering. That would not sit well in a democratic country. After all, Meralco is a monopoly that derives its power from the government. Clothing it with unilateral authority to disconnect would be equivalent to giving it a license to tyrannize its hapless customers.” Although the judgment of the High Court speaks more in this case of the rights of both the electric customers and the service providers, what is important is to know that the service providers cannot cut off electric supply to homes if the homeowner is not around (as due notice cannot be complied with), if there is no authorized government representative, and if there is no written notice of unpaid bills and surcharges and allowing the customer sufficient period to pay the arrears and surcharges. It really pays to know your rights as electric consumers. Even if you fail to pay your electric bills on time because of the harsh economic conditions, you still have rights under the law. E-mail: ajpallugna@gmail.com