IGOT V CA (MERALCO) G.R. No.

150794 CALLEJO; August 17, 2004

NATURE Petition for mandamus with writ of preliminary injunction FACTS - Igot and Meralco entered into a service contract wherein the latter would provide electricity for the formers house. A few months later, Igot was surprised that one of his monthly electric bills amounted only to P18. He inspected the electric meter and found that it had stopped rotating. He reported it to Meralco. He however did not receive a reply. - Months later, he was surprised that his bill amounted to P12k. He wrote to Meralco asking for a breakdown of such fees. He however receive a reply from Meralco demanding him the payment of P111k, alleging that findings of defect on the meter was found by Meralcos employees during an inspection. 5 days later, Igot received a notice of disconnection. - Igot then filed a complaint for damages with writ of preliminary injunction. The RTC issued a TRO. During hearing, respondents lawyer, Atty. Aguila, manifested that it would not disconnect Igots power supply until the court has resolved the issue of preliminary injunction. Igot in turn manifested that he was withdrawing his plea for a TRO. - However, Meralco subsequently disconnected the power supply of Igot. Igot paid the bill (111k) on the assurance of reconnection by Meralco. Still, after a few days there still was no electricity. Meralcos employees, Atty. Lacap and Dela Paz, apparently disallowed reconnection until the 12k bill is paid. Igot paid the 12k and was reconnected. - the RTC granted the writ of preliminary injunction and required Igot to post a P124k bond. Igot also filed a supplemental complaint impleading Lacap, Aguila and Dela Paz for the alleged refusal to reconnect the electricity. The RTC admitted it. - The case was later dismissed due to petitioners repeated failure to appear during the hearings. He filed an MFR but was denied. He then filed a special civil action for certiorari to the CA. Respondent then disconnected Igots electricity. After a few hours, the CA ordered the RTC from further proceeding with the case and ordered Meralco not to disconnect Igot. - Petitioner filed with the CA a motion for issuance of an order directing respondent to reconnect him. The CA granted it. Igot posted a surety bond worth P50k but the CA did not act thereon. The CA then rendered a decision directing the RTC to proceed with trial and making the writ of preliminary injunction permanent. - Respondent filed an MFR arguing that Igot should have deposited cash or a cashiers check as required by RA 7832. Petitioner then demanded that respondent reconnect him. He also filed a motion to the CA. The CA granted it and required Meralco to reconnect him. However, Meralco refused, saying that the decision of the CA is not yet final, thus it cannot be compelled to reconnect Igot. Igot filed an omnibus motion before the CA to cite respondents for indirect contempt. - Igot now files the present petition for mandamus compel the CA to execute the writ of preliminary

mandatory injunction it earlier issued; alternatively, to grant his omnibus motion.

and

ISSUE/S 1. WON the petition for mandamus has become moot 2. WON the Court has jurisdiction to cite respondents for contempt HELD 1. Yes Reasoning Meralco already reconnected Igots power supply pending the case. 2. No Ratio A charge for indirect contempt must be filed before the court contemned. Rule 71.4 Reasoning The court that granted the preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order preserving the status quo is vested with the power to hear and determine the sufficiency and merit of the contempt charge. Only the court which issued the injunction can impose a sanction for contempt of that injunction, and a court without subject matter jurisdiction cannot transfer the case to another court Disposition Petition is dismissed.