Case Name MERALCO v.
CA
Topic Acts Contra Bonus Mores
Case No. | G.R. No. L-39019 | Jan. 22, 1988
Date
Ponente Pedro L. Yap
MERALCO cut private respondents’ electricity after failing to pay
two unpaid bills. Private respondents filed an action for recovery
of damages, which petitioner MERALCO contends that in the
Case
absence of bad faith, they could not be held liable for damages.
Summary
The Supreme Court ruled that disconnecting private
respondents’ electricity without prior notice constitutes a breach
of contract amounting to an independent tort.
Acts Contra Bonus Mores/“Acts against Good Morals” (Article 21,
NCC)
Doctrine - Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another
in a manner that is contrary to morals good customs or
public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
RELEVANT FACTS
1. Private respondents (Chaves family) filed an action for recovery of
damages for the embarrassment, humiliation, wounded feelings and hurt
pride by reason of the disconnection of their electrical service by the
petitioner against Manila Electric Company (MERLACO).
2. At the end of March 1965, Pedro Yambao, the bill collector of MERLACO
went to Chavez and presented two overdue bills. Juana Chaves informed
Yambao that these bills would be paid at the MERALCO main office.
3. On April 2, 1965, Isaac Chaves went MERLACO’s main office but paid only
one of the two unpaid bills. Thus, on April 21 MERALCO caused the electric
service in plaintiff's residence to be discontinued and the power line cut
off.
4. Petitioners contend that in the absence of bad faith, they could not be held
liable damages. The failure to give a notice of disconnection to private
respondents might have been a breach of duty or breach of contract, but
by itself does not constitute bad faith or fraud.
5. The Court of Appeals held that MERALCO’s right to disconnect the electric
service of a delinquent customer “is an absolute one, subject only to the
requirement that defendant MERALCO should give the customer a written
notice of disconnection 48 hours in advance.”
ISSUE RATIO
Whether MERALCO - YES. Disconnecting private respondents’
acted in bad faith in electricity without prior notice constitutes
the disconnection of breach of contract amounting to an
private respondents’ independent tort. The prematurity of the action is
electricity. indicative of an intent to cause additional mental and
moral suffering to private respondent. This is a clear
violation of Article 21 of the Civil Code which provides
that any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to
another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy shall compensate the latter
for damages.
- Electricity has become a necessity to most people
justifying the exercise by the State of its regulatory
power over the business of supplying electrical
service to the public, in which petitioner MERALCO is
engaged. Thus, the state may regulate, as it has
done through Section 97 of the Revised Order No. 1
of the Public Service Commission, the conditions
under which and the manner by which a public utility
such as MERALCO may effect a disconnection of
service to a delinquent customer: “is an absolute
one, subject only to the requirement that defendant
MERALCO should give the customer a written notice
of disconnection 48 hours in advance.”
RULING
Accordingly, we find no grave abuse of discretion committed by respondent court
in affirming the trial court's decision. The petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
merit.
