INTRODUCTION
Republic Act No. 7832 also known as the Anti-Electricity and Electric Transmission
lines and Materials Pilferage Act of 1994, aims to address the illegal tapping, stealing or
pilferage of electricity and electric transmission lines and materials. The implementing rules and
regulations serves as guidelines for the proper enforcement and implementation of the provision
outlined in Republic Act No. 7832.
These rules detailed procedures, penalties, and mechanisms for reporting, investigations,
and prosecution of the individuals or entities involved in electricity theft. The implementing rules
and regulations, provides clarity and specificity to ensure the effective execution of the law and
promote to compliance.
A case related in this law, also known as the Anti- Pilferage Act of 1994, involves the
Manila Electric Company versus Porfirio Samarista. The case involves illegally tapping into
electricity lines of Manila Electricity Company (MERALCO), happened in Barangay Olimpia,
Makati City.
In the investigation of the technical team of MERALCO, Porfirio Samarista was regularly
tapping electricity from MERALCO lines. With the participation of MERALCO inspection
personnel and the joint team of the Philippine National Police operatives, Porfirio Samarista was
held in custody in violating Republic Act No. 7832 also known as the Anti-Pilferage act of 1994.
According to the investigation he was connecting his wire everyday every 2:00 p.m and
reconnect his wire in the morning to avoid being caught with his wrongdoings.The Manila
Electric Company (MERALCO) discovered that Porfirio Samarista ownes them P17, 000 in
accordance to his violation. He was then sentenced to prison and detained at Makati City Jail, the
Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) discovered that Porfirio Samarista ownes them P17, 000
in accordance to his violation.
In connection with Republic Act No. 7832 or the Anti- Pilferage Act of 1994, this second
case involves Lucy Yu versus Manila Electric Company (MERALCO). The case involves illegal
disconnection of electric power lines, the supreme court found that Manila Electric Company
(MERALCO) liable for disconnecting Lucy Yu’s electric power lines without further notice.
Through Lucy Yu’s statement that MERALCO personnel forcibly entered her property to
inspect her electric meter and disconnect her electricity supply without any warning. The
Regional Trial Court assigned MERALCO to pay temperate damages, moral damages, and
exemplary damages to Lucy Yu by illegally disconnecting her electricity supply and tampered by
Manila Electric Company personnel.
The Supreme Court held that the MERALCO failed to comply with the requirements
needed for disconnecting electricity supply under Republic Act No. 7832. The Supreme Court
assigned MERALCO to pay temperate damages to Lucy Yu but reduced the amount from
P300,000 to P50,000.
The Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) was presumed to be in bad faith for its
failure to comply with the strict requirements under Republic No. 7832. In relation with two
cases, the consumer should also take your actions when you witness the illegal wrongdoing of
the electric company and always pay attention.
BACKGROUND
In the case of Porfirio Samarista versus Manila Electric Company, Samarista is a resident
at Barangay Olimpia, Makati City that has been caught and detained at Makati City jail for
violating Republic Act No. 7832 or the Anti- Pilferage Act of 1994. The event lead when they
discovered Porfirio Samarista regularly tapping electricity lines from MERALCO. Based on the
investigation he was tapping the lines at every 2 p.m in the afternoon to avoid getting caught in
his illegal action.
With the help of the authorities of MERALCO as well as the Police Force, they
successfully detained Porfirio Samarista, resident of Barangay Olimpia, Makati City. From the
perspective of electrical engineering law, related to this case that you need to comply with
necessary procedures and know the law with regard to Republic Act No. 7832 as it is very strict
with regard of implementing electricity theft. As for Porfirio Samarista he was detained and
fined as well as paying the P17,000 discovered electricity theft and the Manila Electric Company
may be strict implanting Republic Act No. 7832
In the case of Lucy Yu versus Manila Electric Company, the situation involved dispute
between Lucy Yu represented by her attorney Dennis Incarnacion, the Manila Electric Company
(MERALCO), one of the largest electric companies in the Philippines. This case started when the
Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) personnel illegally disconnect the electrical supply of
Lucy Yu in her property without prior notice or warning wherein it will land differ in violation of
Republic Act No. 7832 or Anti- Pilferage Act of 1994. The case was prosecuted up to the
Supreme Court wherein Lucy Yu claiming that the personnel of the MERALCO is forcibly
entered her property and look for the electric meter and immediately disconnecting the electrical
supplies in her property.
The case of Lucy Yu versus Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) firmly discussed
and give significance on the proper disconnection of the consumer electric lines and how this
case differed MERALCO violating the rules and regulations of Republic Act No. 7832. The
Supreme Court found that the Manila Electric Company commit or they are liable for violating
Republic Act No. 7832 by cutting electricity lines as mandated in this law. The Supreme Court
make the MERALCO pays for the damage they did to Lucy Yu especially in his business, mental
and physical health.
LEGAL ISSUES
These two cases are relevant to the case a per rules and regulations of Republic Act No.
7832 wherein it indicates here is that on the rule number two of illegal use of electricity and theft
of electric power transmission lines and materials as per implementing rules and regulations for
Republic Act No. 7832, applies specific prohibitions of electricity theft and misuse, it is unlawful
for an individual or entity to engage in various activities such as tapping into electric service
wires without authorization, tampering with electric meters, damaging the electric equipment and
benefit from the electricity obtained through unauthorized means. This regulation aims to combat
electricity theft and safeguard the integrity of the power transmission lines. This rule and
regulation are under Republic Act No. 7832 or Anti- Pilferage Act of 1994, under section 2
which the case of Porfirio Samarista and Lucy Yu are connected and relevant as per
implementing rules and regulations.
With regards to the case of Porfirio Samarista, the Manila Electric Company
(MERALCO) filed a case against him when he was been reported that he was regularly been
tapping the electrical service line of the Manila Electric Company. Upon investigation of the
MERALCO’srepresentative and with the help of the Police force led by PO2 Renato de Guzman,
he was arrested for illegally tapping electrical service wires. Criminal charges filed against
Porfirio Samarista, the suspect was being detained at the Makati City jail and besides from his
penalties such as P 17,000 violation of his, he was faces imprisonment as provided in the rules
and regulation of Republic Act No. 7832 under section 2 stated that it was unlawful to any
individual or entity to engage in in various activities such as tapping into the electric service wire
without authorization just like in the case of Porfirio Samarista.
As for the case of Lucy Yu, she filed a case against Manila Electric Company
(MERALCO) for violating Republic Act No. 7832 or the Anti- Pilferage Act of 1994. Based on
her testimony MERALCO’s representative forcibly enter to her property to check the electrical
meter then immediately disconnected her electricity supply without further notice. With regards
with this according to the law, an electric utility may only immediately disconnect services after
due notice and with case of Lucy Yu it was not followed. A prior notice must be given at least 48
hours prior to the disconnection, pursuant to due process requirement. This law aims to protect
consumers from immediate disconnections and ensure that they are given due process before any
interruption in their electricity supply.
The action of the representative of Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) led to the
legal demand of Lucy Yu in immediately disconnecting her electricity supply and pay for the
damages that this company did to her. The Valenzuela Regional Trial Court ordered MERALCO
to pay Lucy Yu P300,000 as temperate damage and P100,000 as moral damages, P50,000 as
exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals ruling in this case upheld the Regional Trial Court’s
award of temperate and moral damages and found merit to increase the amount of exemplary
damages to P500,000 for what they did to Lucy Yu wherein the Manila Electric Company
(MERALCO) appealed on the decision of the Court of Appeals and get this case to the higher
court which is the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court junked its petition on the contrary, the
Supreme Court reduced the damages caused to Yu, it reduced the temperate damages to P50,000
and exemplary damages to P100,000. Based on the court decision, MERALCO failed to follow
the strict rules and regulations requirement of Republic Act No. 7832 or the Anti- Pilferage Act
of 1994 violated due process.
With this Republic Act No. 7832 serves a set of rules and regulations for ensuring
transparent transactions and safeguards the consumers right in cases like this, involving the
disconnection of electric services by the distribution companies like the Manila Electric
Company (MERALCO).
ANALYSIS
On the case of Porfirio Samarista, Republic Act No. 7832 or Anti-Pilferage Act of 1994
was filed against him wherein he was penalized under this law by illegally tapping the electrical
service wires of the Manila Electric Company (MERALCO). This law penalizes the pilferage of
electricity and theft of electric power transmission lines or materials. In his case the electrical
service wire is illegally tapped by him and found it in his own house when taking him by the
authorities into custody.
Republic Act No. 7832 or the Anti- Pilferage Act of 1994 under section 2 of rules and
regulations wherein any individual must not engage to any various activities such as tapping into
electric wires without authorization and damaging electric equipment, this set of rules and
regulation attached to the case of Porfirio Samarista in illegally tapping electric service wire of
the electrical company.
Porfirio Samarista, involved in illegally tapping electrical service wires without
authorization, this violation led to the penalty of him for P17,000 from Manila Electric Company
(MERALCO) as a result he was arrested and facing imprisonment for violating Republic Act No
7832, he faces legal actions consequences for his action illegal wrongdoings.
He was detained at Makati City jail involving his violations on Republic Act No. 7832 or
the Anti- Pilferage Act of 1994. Legal procedures for his wrongdoings are being applied in
violating such rule, also the MERALCO discovers that he has a penalty costing P17,000 caused
by his action.
As for the case of Lucy Yu, Republic Act No. 7832 or the Anti- Pilferage Act of 1994
was filed against Manila Electric Cooperative (MERALCO) wherein she filed a legal action
against the company for violating Republic Act No. 7832 which penalizes the pilferage of
electricity and theft of electric power transmission lines or materials. This law is charge to
MERALCO as it is relevant to the disconnection of her electric supply without any further
notice. Also as stated in the law it requires any electric company to a 48- hour notice before
legally disconnecting the consumers electric supply to make sure that their customers are
informed before doing the action as MERALCO is in fault to failure to comply with this
requirement.
Republic Act No. 7832, aligned in the case of Lucy Yu, this law is directly when the
MERALCO disconnected her electricity supply without further notice. This law aims to prevent
unauthorized disconnection and tampering electric meters which is connected by Lucy Yu’s
testimony. It also says here that the customers must be informed before doing further action and
have a sufficient time to address this problem and MERALCO’s failure to provide this notice
violated the legal procedures.
The case of Lucy Yu versus MERALCO, the Manila Electric Company is in the fault in
violating the due process before disconnecting her electrical supply without any further notice.
This violation of Manila Electric Company led to many damages to her property as well in
herself and the court make the MERALCO pay these damages. MERALCO faces legal
consequences for its action. It is liable for violating the rules and regulations as well as it is liable
for paying the damages it cost to Lucy Yu in regards to disconnecting her electric meter without
further notice.
Lucy Yu seeking for compensation so she filed a case versus MERALCO in the Regional
Trial Court wherein she was compensated by the damages that the company’s illegally
disconnecting her electricity lines. The MERALCO tried to appealed the case to the Supreme
Court but the appealed was been junked but the compensation damages to Lucy Yu was reduced
by the Supreme Court. The electrical engineering laws plays a vital role to determine the rights
and responsibilities of both cases involving in violating the Republic Act No. 7832.
CONCLUSION
Hence, Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) involving to the case of Porfirio
Samarista, they did a necessary action in investigating and followed the necessary steps in taking
Porfirio Samarista into custody for violating the Republic Act No. 7832 or the Anti- Pilferage
Act of 1994 then they take legal actions to charge him for imprisonment as well as pay he pays
the necessary penalties he owes to the electric company, upon observation on the case I can say
that MERALCO did a great job implementing the necessary steps before doing such actions.
On the case of Lucy Yu on the contrary, Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) were
unfortunate due to the fact that in this case one of their representatives did something that caused
a big problem, but because it is their representative the whole electric company was involved.
They were charged with the violation under Republic Act No. 7832 or Anti- Pilferage Act of
1994. Regardless on everywhere you look they were on the wrong direction and not following
the strict implementation of the rules and regulations under Republic Act No. 7832 resulting
them to pay the damages they caused to the victim and lost the case even when they moved the
case into the higher court.
From these two cases as it emphasizes the importance on following legal procedures in
electrical engineering laws and practices as it ensures fair treatment for the consumers and
upholding accountability for violations in the field. The people must be aware on these laws to
avoid any anomalies like in these cases as it serves as a reminder of the consequences that can be
used to you or to them from disregarding established regulations.
REFERENCES:
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/digest/manila-electric-co-v-yu#
https://www.philstar.com/metro/2002/02/03/149286/man-caught-stealing-electricity-convicted
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1795783/sc-meralco-cant-cut-power-without-48-hr-notice
https://lawphil.net/statues/repacts/ra1994/ra_7832_1994.html
https://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=94317:68931&catid=1701<emid=566
https://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c10d43
