Was the electric company correct in disconnecting your electricity?

You forgot to pay your electricity bill on time and when you get home from work, you discover that your electricity service is disconnected.

Was the electric company correct in disconnecting your electricity?

Pursuant to Republic Act 9136, otherwise known as "The Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001," the Energy Regulatory Commission promulgated the Magna Carta for Residential Electricity Consumers which establishes residential consumers' rights to have access to electricity and electric service. Sections 18 and 19 thereof state that:

"Article 18. Right to Due Process Prior to Disconnection of Electric Service. – No consumer shall be deprived of electric service without due process of law.

"Subject to the foregoing paragraph, disconnection of electric service shall only be made under the following circumstances:

"(a) Non-payment of electric bills within the period of time provided in Article 32 of this Magna Carta;

"(b) Illegal use of electricity under Republic Act No. 7832, otherwise known as the Anti-Electricity Pilferage Law;

"(c) Upon lawful orders of government agencies and/or the courts;

"(d) When the public safety so requires;

"(e) Request of the registered customers based on justifiable reasons; or

"(f) Allowing other end-users or persons to be connected to his electrical installation, whether for profit or not."

"Article 19. Right to a Notice Prior to Disconnection. – For disconnections due to non-payment of electric bills, a written notice must have been served to the customer forty-eight (48) hours before such disconnection. The distribution utility may discontinue the service notwithstanding the existence of the customer's bill deposit with the distribution utility which will serve as guarantee for the payment of future bill(s) after service is reconnected."

Based on the above-stated law, a written notice must have been served to the customer forty-eight (48) hours before disconnecting the electricity.

In the case of Manila Electric Company v. T.E.A.M. Electronics Corp., GR 131723, Dec. 13, 2007, Ponente: Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura, the Supreme Court affirmed that an electric company must give a notice prior to disconnecting the power supply of a customer as Section 97 of Revised General Order 1, the governing rule at that time, provides for a 48-hour notice requirement prior to disconnection due to non-payment of bill. This is similar to the provision of the Magna Carta for Residential Electricity Consumers. Therefore, disconnecting the electricity for non-payment of bill without any prior notice is illegal.

If it is proven that your electricity provider cut off your electricity supply without prior notice due to your failure to pay your bill, then said company violated your rights under the Magna Carta for Residential Electricity Consumers, which could open it to civil and administrative liabilities.

Facilitating the lawful ejectment of illegal settlers

The power of expropriation, which allows a government to acquire private property for public use upon payment of just compensation, is inherent and indispensable in the Philippine State.

In PNOC Alternative Fuels Corp. v. National Grid Corp., the Supreme Court referred to this power as “necessarily in derogation of private rights” and “is considered to be one of the harshest proceedings known to the law.”

While the power of expropriation is lodged in the Congress, the legislative branch of the government, it may delegate the same by law to government agencies, public officials and quasi-public entities. Necessarily, the delegate may only exercise this power strictly within the terms of the delegating law. Among these limitations is the manner of evicting informal settlers from expropriated land.

In this regard, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 8974, which sought to facilitate the acquisition of right-of-way, site, or location for government infrastructure projects. It also reinforces the constitutional requirement that urban or rural poor dwellers may only be evicted or their dwellings demolished in accordance with the law and in a just and humane manner. Under this law, the National Housing Authority (NHA) shall coordinate with the applicable local government units and implementing agencies in establishing and developing for informal settlers relocation sites with adequate services and utilities.

The settlers’ structures on the expropriated property may only be demolished in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Urban Development and Housing Act.

Thus, persons or groups identified as professional squatters or squatting syndicates shall be summarily evicted and their dwellings and structures demolished. In this regard, professional squatters refer to:

(a) individuals or groups who occupy lands without their owners’ express consent and who have sufficient income for legitimate housing;

(b) persons who sold, leased or transferred home lots or housing units previously awarded to them to settle illegally in the same place or another urban area; and

(c) non-bona fide occupants and intruders of lands reserved for socialized housing. They do not include individuals or groups renting land and housing from professional squatters or squatting syndicates.

Meanwhile, squatting syndicates refer to groups of persons engaged in the business of squatter housing for profit or gain. Moreover, eviction or demolition may only be allowed when:

(a) persons or entities occupy danger areas, such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways and other public places;

(b) government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to implemented; or

(c) the court issues the corresponding order.

In Department of Public Works and Highways v. Manalo, et al., the Supreme Court held that eviction or demolition orders involving underprivileged and homeless citizens may be implemented after certain measures are complied with, including:

(a) notice at least 30 days before the date of eviction or demolition;

(b) adequate consultations on the matter of settlement with the designated representatives of the families to be resettled and the affected communities in the areas where they are to be relocated;

(c) presence of local government officials or their representatives during eviction or demolition;

(d) use of heavy equipment only on structures that are permanent and made of concrete materials; and

(e) adequate relocation, whether permanent or temporary.

Relocation of these citizens shall be undertaken by the concerned local government unit and the NHA, with the assistance of proper government agencies, within 45 days from the court’s issuance of a notice of final judgment, after which period the order shall be executed. If relocation were not possible within this period, then said unit shall extend to the affected families financial assistance in the amount equivalent to the prevailing minimum daily wage multiplied by 60 days.

Source: Business Inquirer

Partition of estate: How does it work?

The partition of an estate is settled in two ways: extrajudicially and judicially. Whether a will was left by the deceased owner or not, each settlement has their own procedures and requirements that the heirs must comply with.

Extrajudicial partition of estate

Extrajudicial partition occurs when a deceased estate owner has not named any heirs to the property or if they passed away without a valid will. This is a common procedure in the Philippines and is usually settled outside the court. Since the heirs don’t need to go to trial, the estate can be divided among themselves.

According to Rule 74, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, for an extrajudicial settlement to take place, the following criteria must be met:

• No valid will left by the deceased owner

• No existing debts by the deceased owner. If there are, these must be fully paid.

• Heirs must be 18 years of age and above. If not, a judicial or legal agent must represent the minor heirs.

• A public instrument (any legal instrument such as a document) which has been filed in the office of the Register of Deeds

The number of heirs also makes a difference in the extrajudicial partition of estate. Sole heirs must file an Affidavit of Self Adjudication, which will only be accepted if the property owner passed away without leaving a will and if the said person has just one heir. Multiple heirs, on the other hand, must file a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate and Adjudication of Estate.

The Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement includes:

• A declaration stating that all the legal conditions for an extrajudicial settlement were met.

• A description of the properties to be settled, such as the title number, location, lot size, and value.

• The names of the heirs.

• The division of the property among the heirs.

• If the estate is a conjugal property, the document must state the nature of the property.

• If there is personal property involved, the document must state that a bond was posted.

• A pledge to publish the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement in a daily or weekly newspaper. The Deed must be posted once a week for three consecutive weeks.

However, should the heirs disagree with the division of the estate, they must proceed with a judicial settlement.

Judicial partition of estate

In a judicial partition, the matter is taken to court. This happens if the deceased property owner has left a valid will or if there are disagreements or conflict among the heirs.

If there is a judicial partition of estate, the heirs must:

• File a petition in the proper court (The Regional Trial Court of his/her place of residence if the property owner is a Philippine resident and any Regional Trial Court of his/her current province if the property owner is a foreign resident.)

• Publish a notice of the settlement proceedings in a public newspaper, once a week for three consecutive weeks

The judicial partition of estate also takes longer than an extrajudicial partition. It could even take years before the property is even transferred to the heirs.