MERALCO vs. RAMOY

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, petitioner, vs .
MATILDE MACABAGDAL RAMOY, BIENVENIDO RAMOY, ROMANA

RAMOY-RAMOS, ROSEMARIE RAMOY, OFELIA DURIAN and CYRENE
PANADO ,respondents.
G.R. No. 158911. March 4, 2008
Ponente: AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J
FACTS:
In 1987, the National Power Corporation (NPC) filed with the MTC Quezon
City a case for ejectment against several persons allegedly illegally
occupying its properties in Baesa, Quezon City. Among the defendants in
the ejectment case was Leoncio Ramoy, one of the plaintiffs in the case at
bar.
In 1989, the MTC rendered judgment and ordered the defendants to

demolish or remove the building and structures they built on the land of
MERALCO and to vacate the premises.
On June 20, 1990 NPC wrote Meralco requesting for the "immediate
disconnection of electric power supply to all residential and commercial
establishments beneath the NPC transmission lines along Baesa, Quezon
City. Attached to the letter was a list of establishments affected which
included plaintiffs Leoncio and Matilde Ramoy, as well as a copy of the
court decision.
After deliberating on NPC's letter, Meralco decided to comply with NPC's

request and thereupon issued notices of disconnection to all
establishments affected including those owned by the plaintiffs.
In due time, the electric service connection of the plaintiffs [herein

respondents] was disconnected.
Plaintiff Leoncio Ramoy testified that when the Meralco employees were
disconnecting plaintiffs' power connection, he objected by informing the
Meralco foreman that his property was outside the NPC property and
pointing out the monuments showing the boundaries of his property.
However, he was threatened and told not to interfere by the armed men
who accompanied the Meralco employees.
During the ocular inspection ordered by the Court and attended by the
parties, it was found out that the residence of plaintiffs-spouses Leoncio
and Matilde Ramoy was indeed outside the NPC property. This was
confirmed by defendant's witness R.P. Monsale III on cross-examination.
Monsale also admitted that he did not inform his supervisor about this
fact nor did he recommend re-connection of plaintiffs' power supply.
MERALCO argued that since there is a Decision of the MTC ruling that
herein respondents were among the illegal occupants of the NPC's right of
way, MERALCO was justified in cutting off service to respondents.
ISSUE:
Whether or not MERALCO is guilty of negligence for disconnecting the
subject electric service of respondents.
RULING:
Yes. Article 1173 provided that the fault or negligence of the obligor
consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature
of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons,
of the time and of the place. The Court emphasized in Ridjo Tape &
Chemical Corporation v. Court of Appeals that "as a public utility,
MERALCO has the obligation to discharge its functions with utmost care
and diligence."
The Court agrees with the CA that under the factual milieu of the present
case, MERALCO failed to exercise the utmost degree of care and diligence
required of it. It was not enough for MERALCO to merely rely on the
Decision of the MTC without ascertaining whether it had become final and
executory.
Although MERALCO insists that the MTC Decision is final and executory, it
never showed any documentary evidence to support this allegation.
Moreover, if it were true that the decision was final and executory, the
most prudent thing for MERALCO to have done was to coordinate with the
proper court officials in determining which structures are covered by said
court order. Likewise, there is no evidence on record to show that this
was done by MERALCO.
In the present case, MERALCO willfully caused injury to Leoncio Ramoy by

withholding from him and his tenants the supply of electricity to which
they were entitled under the Service Contract. This is contrary to public
policy because, as discussed above, MERALCO, being a vital public utility,
is expected to exercise utmost care and diligence in the performance of
its obligation. It was incumbent upon MERALCO to do everything within its
power to ensure that the improvements built by respondents are within
the NPC's right of way before disconnecting their power supply.
Thus, by analogy, MERALCO's failure to exercise utmost care and

diligence in the performance of its obligation to Leoncio Ramoy, its
customer, is tantamount to bad faith.
This being so, MERALCO is guilty of negligence and is therefore liable for
damages under Article 1170 of the Civil Code.

MERALCO vs. RAMOY

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MERALCO vs. RAMOY

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, petitioner, vs .

MATILDE MACABAGDAL RAMOY, BIENVENIDO RAMOY, ROMANA

In 1989, the MTC rendered judgment and ordered the defendants to

After deliberating on NPC's letter, Meralco decided to comply with NPC's

In due time, the electric service connection of the plaintiffs [herein

In the present case, MERALCO willfully caused injury to Leoncio Ramoy by

Thus, by analogy, MERALCO's failure to exercise utmost care and

You might also like