18. MERALCO VS CA (GR.No.

L39019- Jan 22, 1988)

FACTS:
To recover the damages due to embarrassment,
humiliation, hurt pride, and wounded feelings inflicted by
MERALCO & YAMBAO during the disconnection of the
CHAVES FAMILY’s electrical service, the CHAVES FAMILY
filed a complaint at CFI-Manila.

The court ordered MERALCO & YAMBAO to pay P10,000

pesos to the CHAVES FAMILY as payment for damages.
Hence, MERALCO & YAMBAO filed an appeal in the CA, but
the CA denied the petition.

It was found that the CHAVES FAMILY is a customer of

MERALCO.

The CHAVES FAMILYs claims that MERALCO did not

provide any notice before the disconnection.

CHAVEZ FAMILY contends that it must be compulsory to

issue a disconnection notice.

MERALCO & YAMBAO say that they have the right to

disconnect the electric service of the delinquent customer,
because the CHAVES FAMILY failed to pay certain bills
(bills in arrears).

ISSUE: WON in the absence of bad faith in disconnecting the

service to CHAVES family, MERALCO &YAMBAO could be
held liable for damages?

HELD:
YES, MERALCO & YAMBAO CAN BEHELD LIABLE.

There is no abuse of discretion in the part of the CA in

affirming the assailed decision of the CFI Manila.

The right to disconnect the electric service of a delinquent

customer shall be accompanied by a given notice 48 hours
in advanced as provided for in Section 97 of the Revised
Order No. 1 of the Public Service Commission. In
accordance with the previous rulings, failure to give such
prior notice amounts to a tort. 

And since, MERALCO & YAMBAO in this particular case

disregarded the rule on 48-hour notice prior to
disconnection which is protected by law, MERALCO &
YAMBAO is liable for damages according to Article 1170 of
the civil code, therefore, the CHAVES FAMILY is entitled to
claim damages.