2 minute read

notice necessary before power service disconnection, SC tells Meralco

By Joel R. San Juan

APRIOR notice of at least 48 hours is required before the Manila Electric Company (Meralco) could implement a service disconnection order of a consumer.

This was declared by the Supreme Court (SC) as it denied the petition of Meralco assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) issued on November 26, 2020 which held that the electric firm violated RA 7832, or the Anti-Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines/Materials Pilferage Act of

1994, for cutting off the electricity supply of a consumer without prior notice.

The CA decision upheld the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City, Branch 172, which ruled in favor of respondent Lucy Lu. Lu’s family owns the New Supersonic Industrial Corporation (NSIC) in Valenzuela City.

In her complaint, Lu claimed that on December 9, 1999, representatives from Meralco forcibly entered the premises of NSIC.

After an inspection, the Meralco representatives issued a notice of disconnection and immediately disconnected the electricity supply of NSIC’s factory and their residence.

It was not mentioned, however, the reason for the disconnection of Lu’s electricity service.

In denying Meralco’s petition for review of the CA’s decision, the Court ruled that before Meralco can disconnect the electric service of a consumer on grounds cited under Section 4(a) of RA 7832, there must be prior written notice to the consumer to disconnect.

The notice, according to the SC, must be given at least 48 hours prior to the disconnection, pursuant to due process requirements.

Thus, it held that Meralco violated the due process requirements in this case.

Likewise, the SC affirmed the award of damages in favor of Lu in the amount of P150,000.

The court has yet to release a copy of its decision.

Sought for reaction on the SC ruling, Meralco, in a news statement said, “We have not officially received a copy of the SC decision. In any case, we will respect and abide by the said decision.” “We note that the incident in question happened in 1999. It has been Meralco’s policy to serve 48-hour prior notice before disconnecting any service to comply with the due process requirements,” the statement added. With Lenie Lectura

DAVAO CITY—The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) extended anew the deadline for amnesty applications for late and nonfiling of annual financial statements (AFS), general information sheets (GIS), and official contact details.

The deadline was moved to September 30.

The SEC also announced it has streamlined the amnesty applications “by adapting a Unified Amnesty Application Form, a webbased form available on the Electronic Filing and Submission Tool that will allow eligible companies to express their concurrence and/or consent to certain conditions of the amnesty process.”

The Unified Amnesty Application Form replaces the notarized Expression of Interest Form and Amnesty Application Form previously required by the Commission, it said.

Companies whose only violation is non-compliance with SEC Memorandum Circular No. 28, Series of 2020 should submit Annex D of the circular using the MC 28 Submission Portal, the SEC said. The applicant then has to accomplish the web-based form to signify intent to avail of the amnesty.

The SEC also announced it has removed the option “to file an undertaking to submit the latest due AFS within 90 days from amnesty application, as it is understood the AFS should be ready by September 30, consistent with the SEC and Bureau of Internal Revenue’s prescribed deadlines.”

It said that corporations that were able to submit the correct reportorial requirements, including those reverted for compliance, within the submission period or until September 30 “will be considered to have undergone the complete process and are entitled to receive a Confirmation of Payment [COP]. Otherwise, the payment of amnesty fees will be forfeited.”

The COP will be released within 15 working days from the date of complete submission of reportorial requirements. Manuel T. Cayon

This article is from: