LIABILITY FOR RELOCATION OF A UTILITY POLE INSIDE PRIVATE PROPERTY
Philippine legal overview (as of 28 June 2025)
Executive summary. In the Philippines, a “utility pole” (electric-distribution, telecommunications, or cable-TV) may legally occupy private land only through (a) an easement voluntarily granted by the owner, (b) an easement of public-utility right-of-way acquired by expropriation or negotiated sale, or (c) continued tolerance that ripens into a quasi-easement. Liability for moving the pole depends on which of those scenarios applies, who benefits from the move, and whether the pole’s presence has become unlawful or tortious. Below is a full treatment of statutes, regulations, jurisprudence, and practical procedure.
1. Statutory & regulatory framework
| Instrument | Key provisions on poles & relocation |
|---|---|
| Civil Code (1950), Arts. 613-664 (easements) & Arts. 694-707 (nuisance) | • A pole creates a continuous, apparent easement. • Owner may demand removal if easement was never constituted, has expired, or is now more burdensome than agreed (Arts. 627-630). • A pole that obstructs the lawful use of one’s property may be an actionable nuisance (Art. 694). |
| Public Service Act (C.A. 146, as amended) | Grants public utilities eminent-domain power to acquire rights-of-way “with just compensation.” |
| Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) (R.A. 9136, 2001) & Philippine Distribution Code (ERC Res. 24-09) | Distribution utilities (DUs) must “[obtain] and [maintain] all necessary rights-of-way” for their lines (§22.3). They bear relocation cost unless relocation is “at the request and for the exclusive benefit of a customer” (Dist. Code, Ch. 3 §3.4). |
| R.A. 7925 (1995) & NTC Memorandum Circulars | Telecommunications operators must “avoid encroachment upon private rights” and may install plant on private land only with consent or easement. NTC M.C. 03-05-2022 directs telcos to relocate non-compliant poles at their expense when ordered by LGUs or DPWH. |
| R.A. 10752 – Right-of-Way Act (2016) | When DPWH road projects require pole relocation, the State or concessionaire pays DU/Telco the direct cost of moving, and pays the landowner compensation for additional land taken. |
| Local Government Code (R.A. 7160, 1991) & city/municipal pole-management ordinances | LGUs may declare dangerous/obstructive poles a public nuisance and order abatement at the utility’s cost (Sec. 16, police power). |
2. How a pole may end up inside a private lot
- After road widening: The frontage that used to be public road is deeded back to the titled owner or was never expropriated; the pole now sits within the surveyed lot.
- Boundary resurvey errors: The original pole was on the edge, but relocation of mojon/markers shows encroachment.
- Informal installation: Utility planted the pole by mere tolerance or without written permission.
- Sale or subdivision: New owner discovers an internal pole not covered by any easement annotation.
3. Who is liable to relocate and pay the cost?
| Situation | Primary duty-bearer | Cost rule | Legal basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pole lacks any valid easement or franchise right-of-way (pure trespass) | Utility company | 100 % by utility; plus damages for unlawful occupation | Arts. 429 & 451 Civil Code; Meralco v. Rodriguez, G.R. 165955, 24 Aug 2011 (trespass to property by DU) |
| Easement exists but relocation is necessary to cure safety, zoning or nuisance violation | Utility company | 100 % by utility | Art. 694 (nuisance); LGU ordinances; ERC & NTC safety codes |
| Relocation demanded solely for owner’s private development (e.g., to clear future driveway) | Requesting owner | Owner bears actual relocation cost, subject to utility’s service schedule of charges | Dist. Code Ch. 3 §3.4; Spouses Donato v. PLDT, G.R. 193017, 16 Nov 2016 (owner must shoulder telco relocation done purely for his benefit) |
| Government infrastructure project (road widening, flood control) | Implementing agency (DPWH, LGU, or concessionaire) | Agency shoulders utility’s relocation cost and compensates landowner for any new taking | R.A. 10752, Secs. 5-6; DPWH Dept Order 73-2014 |
| Pole covered by written easement, but owner proves easement has been extinguished (e.g., non-use for 10 yrs or heavier burden than agreed) | Utility company | Utility shoulders cost unless parties agree otherwise or easement contract provides owner participation | Arts. 631-632 Civil Code |
4. Procedural roadmap
Document review Check the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) for annotations (“Easement in favor of MERALCO,” etc.). Absence of annotation is powerful—but not conclusive—proof that no easement exists.
Send written demand A notarized demand to the utility should (a) assert ownership and lack/termination of easement, (b) cite safety or nuisance grounds, and (c) give a reasonable relocation date (usually 60–90 days).
Report to regulators / LGU
- Electric: Energy Regulatory Commission Consumer Affairs or DU’s Consumer Welfare Desk.
- Telco/CATV: National Telecommunications Commission Regional Office.
- All: City Engineering Office or Municipal Building Official can cite pole as nuisance/violation of National Building Code §105. Agencies often issue a Notice to Relocate with a specific compliance period.
If utility refuses
- Civil action for mandatory injunction and damages (RTC has jurisdiction if damages > ₱20 000).
- LGU nuisance abatement: Mayor may summarily remove hazard poles under LGC §16 & §444(b)(3)(iv).
- Expropriation counter-claim: Utility may instead file eminent-domain case to retain pole with just compensation; owner can oppose or insist on underground cabling.
Cost assessment & schedule Where owner must pay, utilities use their Standards of Charges approved by ERC/NTC. Typical 2025 prices (Metro Manila):
- Single-phase wood pole relocation: ₱18 000–₱25 000
- Concrete 35-foot distribution pole: ₱35 000–₱50 000
- Telco “quad” pole: ₱12 000–₱18 000 Costs rise 20–40 % for poles carrying transformers or primary feeder.
Implementation & inspection The utility handles dismantling, hole refilling, and site restoration. Final inspection by LGU engineering and, for electric lines ≥13.2 kV, by DOE-accredited inspector.
5. Damages and penalties
| Basis | Possible awards / sanctions |
|---|---|
| Civil Code Art. 2176 (quasi-delict) | Actual damages for construction delay, demolition costs, loss of use; moral damages if bad faith; exemplary damages for wanton refusal. |
| Article 694 nuisance | Court may award abatement expenses and attorney’s fees. |
| EPIRA ERC fines | Up to ₱50 000 per day for non-compliance with Distribution Code orders. |
| NTC fines | ₱200 000 per violation, plus suspension of CPCN (Certificate of Public Convenience & Necessity). |
| Local fines & closure | City ordinances (e.g., Quezon City Ord. 2578-2017) impose ₱5 000/day and suspension of excavation permits. |
6. Key jurisprudence
| Case | G.R. No. / Date | Take-away |
|---|---|---|
| National Power Corp. v. Gutierrez | 60077 • 31 Jan 1992 | Power line easements require just compensation even if only an easement (not full taking). |
| Spouses Donato v. PLDT | 193017 • 16 Nov 2016 | Owner who requested relocation “for his exclusive convenience” must bear cost; telco not liable in absence of negligence. |
| Meralco v. Rodriguez | 165955 • 24 Aug 2011 | A DU that installs facilities on private land without consent is liable for ejectment and damages. |
| NAPOCOR v. Que | 211098 • 30 Jan 2017 | Even after long possession, a power company must expropriate if owner revokes tolerance and no formal easement exists. |
| Espinas v. People (re pole accident) | 180564 • 10 July 2019 | Utility liable under Art. 2180 for injuries caused by deteriorated pole it failed to maintain. |
7. Practical guidance for owners
- Secure a geodetic survey to prove the pole’s exact coordinates vis-à-vis your titled boundaries.
- Check your own construction timetable. If the pole can be integrated into a perimeter wall or gateway, relocation costs might be avoided.
- Negotiate first. Many DUs/Telcos relocate gratis if safety or compliance is at stake; litigation should be last resort.
- Document everything. Photos, dated letters, and LGU blotter entries strengthen future damage claims.
- Beware service disruption risks. Plan for temporary power/telecom outage during relocation (notify tenants).
8. Practical guidance for utilities
- Adopt a “pole audit” program to identify encroachments early.
- Keep template easement agreements ready; have them annotated on the owner’s TCT as § 59 of PD 1529 requires.
- Budget annually for mandatory relocations under LGU road-clearing campaigns.
- Engage in underground cabling pilot projects (e.g., under DOE D.O. 2023-09-0019).
9. Conclusion
Liability for relocating a utility pole on Philippine private land hinges on the legal title underpinning the pole, the purpose of the move, and whether the pole’s presence has become unlawful or unsafe. In general, utilities shoulder the bill unless the property owner alone benefits. Owners, meanwhile, have robust remedies—from regulatory complaints to nuisance suits—when a pole stands in the way of lawful use. Both sides should aim for negotiated relocation backed by clear easement documentation, thereby avoiding costly litigation and service interruptions.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a Philippine lawyer for advice on a specific situation.