Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
|
|
G.R. No. 144474 |
|
COOPERATIVE, INC., and |
|
|
|
BALTAZAR DACULA, |
|
Present: |
|
Petitioners, |
|
|
|
|
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J., |
|
|
|
Chairperson, |
|
|
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
- versus - |
|
CALLEJO, SR., |
|
|
|
CHICO-NAZARIO, and |
|
|
|
NACHURA, JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
ESTRELLA QUIJANO, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
April 27,
2007 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
By
way of a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, petitioners Samar Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(SAMELCO) and Baltazar Dacula
(Dacula) assail the September 7, 1999 Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 32035,[2]
which affirmed in toto the January 15, 1991
Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), and the July 17, 2000 CA Resolution[3]
which denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.
The
facts which are not disputed are summarized below.
SAMELCO
observed the reduction by more or less 50% in the electric consumption from
April 1983 to March 1984 of one of its customers, spouses Norberto and Estrella Quijano, as registered
in their electric meter.[4]
On
The following day, the Spouses Quijano requested SAMELCO to restore their electric service
but SAMELCO required them to pay penalty charges for allegedly tampering with
the electric meter. The Spouses Quijano refused to pay, insisting that their electric meter
was not tampered with. Instead, they
filed a Complaint[6] for Damages with the RTC against
SAMELCO and Dacula.
The latter filed a Motion to Dismiss[7]
on the ground that the complaint involves an intra-corporate dispute between
SAMELCO as an electric cooperative and
Spouses Quijano as its members and that
jurisdiction over it is vested in the Securities and Exchange Commission. The
RTC denied the motion in an Order[8]
dated
After trial, the RTC rendered a
Decision dated
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and
against the defendants, ordering the latter to comply with the following, to
wit:
1. to pay plaintiffs solidarily
the amount of five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos for actual damages; twenty thousand (P20,000.00) pesos for
moral damages; five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos for exemplary damages;
and five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos for attorney's fees plus two
thousand (P2,000.00) pesos for litigation expenses; and
2. to return and reconnect the electric meter of the plaintiff to its
original installation immediately upon request of the plaintiffs.
SO ORDERED.[9]
SAMELCO and Dacula
appealed[10]
but were rebuffed by the CA in the
SAMELCO and Dacula (petitioners) took the present recourse to have the
A. The trial
court and the Honorable Court of Appeals committed an error of law in their
interpretation and application of Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code.
1.
SAMELCO II was not primarily motivated by hatred
or desire to cause damage or prejudice upon herein respondent and her family
but rather by its desire to save itself from financial destruction by eliminating,
if not minimizing, pilferage of electricity.
2.
There was sufficient factual basis for SAMELCO
II to inspect its own electric meter installed at the store and residence of
herein respondent.
3.
Herein petitioners' inspection of the electric
meter and the electric appliances and contrivances inside the store and
residence of herein respondent was practically with prior authority from the
latter.
4.
The inspection of the electric meter and of
herein respondents' appliances, lamps and other electrical gadgets, as well as
the removal of the meter, were not done in wanton and high-handed manner. No
“abuse of right” was ever committed by herein petitioners.
B. The Honorable
Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the complaint of herein respondent on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction.[12]
We
will address the jurisdictional issue ahead of the substantive ones.
There
has been quite a number of cases where we recognized
the original jurisdiction of the RTC over actions for damages or injunction
arising from the arbitrary disconnection of electrical services.[13] The case most akin to the present petition is
Sps. Quisumbing
v. Meralco[14]
where the Court sustained with modification the RTC and CA decisions which
awarded damages to the spouses Quisumbing for the
arbitrary manner in which Meralco disconnected their
electric service.
Petitioners,
nonetheless, reiterate the arguments in their Motion for Reconsideration with
the CA that, as respondents are its members-consumers, their complaint falls
within the jurisdiction of the NEA based on Sections 10, 35 and 46 of
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 269.[15]
This Court is not
persuaded. No such adjudicatory power is
vested by P.D. No. 269 in NEA.
Petitioners
relied only on the first paragraph of Section 10 of P.D. No. 269 (as amended by
P.D. No. 1645) the full text of which reads:
Sec. 10. Enforcement Powers and
Remedies. - In the exercise of its power of supervision and control
over electric cooperatives and other borrower, supervised or controlled
entities, the NEA is empowered to issue orders, rules and regulations and motu propio or upon
petition of third parties, to conduct investigations, referenda and other
similar actions in all matters affecting said electric cooperatives
and other borrower, or supervised or controlled entities.
If the electric cooperative
concerned or other similar entity fails after due notice to comply with NEA
orders, rules and regulations and/or decisions, or with any of the terms of the
Loan Agreement, the NEA Board of Administrators may avail of any or all of the
following remedies:
(a) Refuse to make or approve any
loan to the borrower or to release funds to implement loans that are otherwise
already approved;
(b) Withhold
NEA advances, or withhold approval of advances or fund releases in behalf of
any other lender with respect to which the NEA has such power relative to loans
made;
(c) Withhold
any technical or professional assistance otherwise being furnished or that
might be furnished to the borrower;
(d) Foreclose
any mortgage or deed of trust or other security hold by the NEA on the
properties of such borrower, in connection with which the NEA may subject to
any superior or co-equal rights in such lien held by any other lender, (1) bid
for and purchase or otherwise acquire such properties; (2) pay the purchase
price thereof and any costs and expenses incurred in connection therewith out
of the revolving fund; (3) accept title to such properties in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines; and (4) even prior to the institution of
foreclosure proceedings, operate or lease such properties for such period, and
in such manner as may be deemed necessary or advisable to protect the
investment therein, including the improvement, maintenance and rehabilitation
of systems to be foreclosed, but the NEA may, within five years after acquiring
such properties in foreclosure proceedings, sell the same for such
consideration as it determines to be reasonable and upon such terms and
conditions as it determines most conducive to the achievement of the purposes
of this Decree; or
(e) Take preventive and/or
disciplinary measures including suspension and/or removal and replacement of
any or all of the members of the Board of Directors, officers or employees of
the Cooperative, other borrower institutions or supervised or controlled
entities as the NEA Board of Administrators may deem fit and necessary and to
take any other remedial measures as the law or the Loan Agreement may provide.
No Cooperative shall borrow money
from any source without the Board of Administrator's prior approval: Provided, That the NEA Board of Administrators, may, by appropriate
rule or regulation, grant general permission to Cooperative to secure
short-term loans not requiring the encumbrance of their real properties or of a
substantial portion of their other properties or assets.
It is a fundamental rule in statutory construction that the
clauses, phrases, sections and provisions of a law be
read as a whole; never as disjointed or truncated parts,[16] for a law is enacted as a
single entity and not by installment of paragraphs here and subsections there.[17] Applying this rule to Section 10, its opening
paragraph must be read in relation to the succeeding subsections. The phrase in the opening paragraph ostensibly
vesting in the NEA jurisdiction over “all matters” involving electric
cooperatives actually pertain to the subjects covered in the succeeding
subsections such as the organization of electric cooperatives,[18] rate fixing,[19] loan agreements and fund
management. This is a rational
understanding of Section 10 for, as specified in the preamble of the law, the
primary purpose of the NEA is to ensure total electrification through the
administration of funds for the establishment and operation of electric
cooperatives.
Petitioners’
reliance on Section 35 of P.D. No. 269 is likewise misplaced. The provision reads:
Section 35. Non-profit,
Non-discriminatory, Area Coverage Operation and Service. A
cooperative shall be operated on a non-profit basis for the mutual benefit of
its members and patrons; shall, as to rates and services make or grant no
unreasonable preference or advantage to any member or patron nor subject any
member or patron to any unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage; shall
not establish or maintain any unreasonable difference as to rates or services
either as between localities or as between classes of service; shall not give,
pay or receive any rebate or bonus, directly or indirectly, or mislead its
members in any manner as to rates charged for its services; and shall furnish
service on an area coverage basis; Provided, That for any extension of service
which if treated on the basis of standard terms and conditions is so costly as
to jeopardize the financial feasibility of the cooperative's entire operation,
the cooperative may require such contribution in aid of construction, such
facilities extension deposit, such guarantee of minimum usage for a minimum
term or such other reasonable commitment on the part of the person to be served
as may be necessary and appropriate to remove such jeopardy, but no difference
in standard rates for use of service shall be imposed for such purpose.
The
by-laws of a cooperative or its contracts with members and patrons shall
contain such reasonable terms and conditions respecting membership, the
furnishing of service and the disposition of revenues and receipts as may be
necessary and appropriate to establish and maintain its non-profit, cooperative
character and to ensure compliance with this section. No bona fide applicant for membership on
non-member patronage who is able and willing to satisfy and abide by all such
terms and conditions shall be denied arbitrarily, capriciously or without good
cause. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 35 merely
declares discriminatory practices regarding rate fixing and delivery of
services as contrary to public policy. Arbitrary
service disconnection per se is not a discriminatory practice unless it
is alleged and established that the party prejudiced by the disconnection was
purposely singled out or differentiated against. There is no allegation nor
proof by the Spouses Quijano (respondents) that there
was a purposeful discriminatory design by petitioners in depriving them of
electric service. By no stretch of the imagination may Section 10 be construed
to vest in the NEA jurisdiction to resolve claims for damages arising from
arbitrary service disconnection.
Section
46 of P. D. No. 269 which provides:
Section 46. Additional Regulation of Cooperatives by the NEA. In
addition to the other ways in which cooperatives are subject to regulation by
the NEA as provided in this Decree, the NEA, on its own motion or upon
complaint but only after affording opportunity for hearing to all interested
parties, is empowered to and shall (1) require a cooperative to extend or
improve service upon the NEA’s determination that
such should be done in furtherance of the purposes of this Decree and that such
may reasonably be done without undue impairment of the feasibility of the
cooperative’s operation and financial condition; and (2) require a cooperative
to cease and correct any practice or act which the NEA determines to be in
violation of the provisions of Section 35, and in connection with such
authority it may require a cooperative to file with the NEA, and to make
accessible to any person upon request therefore, copies of all rates, charges,
contract forms, fee or deposit schedules, by-laws, and service rules and
regulations.
is also inapplicable. It empowers the NEA to compel electric cooperatives
to “extend or improve service” in furtherance of the purposes of P.D. No. 269. There is nothing in this provision, however,
granting the NEA authority to hold an electric cooperative liable for damages
arising from its arbitrary disconnection of electrical services to a member or
to order said electric cooperative to re-connect such services.
To
recapitulate, while P.D. No. 269 appoints the NEA as overseer of electric
cooperatives, its supervision is limited to matters concerning loans, rate fixing
and service improvement, but does not include adjudication of claims for
damages against electric cooperatives arising from such acts as the arbitrary
disconnection of electrical services to a member. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction is
determined by the allegations in the complaint and its annexes.[20] There is no allegation therein of matters
involving the organization of electric cooperatives,
rate fixing, loan agreement and fund management which would bring the case
within the operation of Section 10; neither is there an averment of a discriminatory
practice in rate fixing or service distribution, which would make Section 35
applicable; nor protest against service failure as would subject the complaint
to Section 46. Instead, it is expressly stated in respondents’ complaint
that their action is for recovery of damages for mental anguish, social
humiliation and moral shock arising from the disconnection of their electric
service by petitioners,[21]
which action is cognizable by the regular courts, such as the RTC.[22]
This brings us to the principal issue
of whether the CA erred in sustaining the
The
RTC held petitioners liable for damages to respondents Spouses Quijano based on the
finding that the inspection, removal and recalibration of the latter's
electric meter and the disconnection of their electric service were all done
without their consent or presence.[23] Concurring with this finding of the RTC, the
CA held that the lack of consent to and presence of respondents in the whole
process rendered whatever evidence petitioners may have gathered in the course
thereof entirely dubious. The CA aptly explained:
Despite these, appellants still
did not observe restraint in their actions as clearly shown by the evidence on
record. Having resolved to disconnect
the subject meter and to confirm that it was tampered, the inspection team
should have formally notified the appellees that
their meter was disconnected due to suspicion of tampering and altogether
require them to be present when the meter would be calibrated at SAMELCO's meter laboratory. They did not. Even worse, the appellants proceeded to
calibrate the meter in the absence of and without notice to the appellees or their representatives (T.S.N., January 14,
1987, p. 16). That smells bad faith. Instead of giving the appellees
fair notice and warning, and affording them a reasonable opportunity to
challenge the veracity of the alleged tampering, appellants had effectively
left the Quijanos with the bleak alternative of
either accepting the cooperative's finding as the gospel truth or suffer the
possibility of living an uncomfortable life without electricity. It goes without saying that whimsical and
capricious acts such as the one perpetrated by the appellants is violative of the due process and frowned upon by the morals
and good customs of every civilized society. In this jurisdiction, such act could neither
be condoned nor tolerated.
Ironically,
appellants had every opportunity to present evidence within their control to
establish that they had given the appellees ample
notice and an adequate opportunity to ascertain the truthfulness of their
findings. Yet, aside from their bare
declarations which We find to be self-serving, no such
credible evidence was proffered. For
this reason, there are not enough evidence submitted to overturn the lower
court's finding of bad faith thus, appellants must necessarily suffer the
consequences of their own inaction and indifference.[24]
We agree with the CA.
Electricity is property[25]
the enjoyment of which the provider, such as an electric cooperative like Samelco, may extend or deny to others.[26] However, electricity is not just any property, and an electric
cooperative is not just any property owner. Electricity is a basic necessity
the generation and distribution of which is imbued with public interest, and
its provider is a public utility subject to strict regulation by the State in
the exercise of police power.[27] Failure to comply with these regulations will
give rise to the presumption of bad faith or abuse of right.[28]
Against electricity pilferage, an
electric cooperative is allowed certain
measures of self-preservation.
The present law, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7832[29]
(as amended by Republic Act No. 9136), allows electric cooperatives multiple
remedies consisting of immediate disconnection of the electric service of the
erring consumer,[30]
criminal prosecution,[31]
and the imposition of surcharges.[32]
Prior to R.A. No. 7832, however, the
remedies available to electric cooperatives were limited. Under Presidential Decree No. 401[33]
(P.D. No. 401), the remedies available to it were merely the conduct of
inspections of electric meters and the criminal prosecution of those erring
consumers who were found to have tampered with their electric meters, thus:
Section 1. Any person who installs any water, electrical, telephone or piped gas connection without previous authority from the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System, the Manila Electric Company, the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, or the Manila Gas Corporation, as the case may be, tampers and/or uses tampered water, electrical or gas meters, jumpers or other devices whereby water, electricity or piped gas is stolen; steals or pilfers water, electric or piped gas meters, or water, electric and/or telephone wires, or piped gas pipes or conduits; knowingly possesses stolen or pilfered water, electrical or gas meters as well as stolen or pilfered water, electrical and/or telephone wires, or piped gas pipes and conduits, shall, upon conviction, be punished with prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from two thousand to six thousand pesos, or both.
P.D. No. 401 did not expressly provide
for more expedient remedies such as the charging of differential billing and immediate
disconnection against erring consumers. Thus, electric cooperatives found a
creative way of availing of such remedies by inserting into their service
contracts a provision for differential billing with option of disconnection
upon non-payment by the erring consumer. The Court has recognized the validity
of such stipulations.[34]
However, recourse to the remedy of
differential billing with disconnection was subject to strict regulation,[35] specifically under Sections 96 and 97 of
Revised General Order No. 1, which provide:
Sec. 96. Refusal or discontinuance of service. - A public service shall not refuse or discontinue service to an applicant, or customer, who is not in arrears to the public service, even though there are unpaid charges due from the premises occupied by applicant, or customer, on account of unpaid bill of a prior tenant, unless there is evidence of conspiracy between them to defraud public service.
Sec. 97. Payment of bills. - A public service may require that bills for service be paid within a specified time after rendition. When the billing period covers a month or more, the minimum time allowed will be ten days and upon expiration of the specified time, service may be discontinued for the non-payment of bills, provided that a 48-hours’ written notice of such disconnection has been given the customer; Provided, however, That disconnections of service shall not be made on Sundays and official holidays and never after 2 p.m., or any working day; Provided, further, that if at the moment the disconnection is to be made the customer tenders payment of the unpaid bill to the agent or employee of the operator who is to effect the disconnection, the said agent or employee shall be obliged to accept tendered payment and issue a temporary receipt for the amount and shall desist from disconnecting the service.
Significantly, electric cooperatives
were not permitted to resort to outright disconnection without prior recourse
to differential billing with notice.
The law in force at the time of the
disconnection complained of in this case is P.D. No. 401. Hence, the requirements under said law are
applicable to this case, specifically that disconnection be resorted to only
after notice of differential billing as provided under Sections 96 and 97
above.
There
is no question that herein petitioners resorted to disconnection without prior
recourse to charging respondents differential billing and affording the latter
opportunity to settle the same. This arbitrary
action of petitioners rendered them in bad faith.
Moreover, as found by the CA and RTC, petitioners
disconnected the electric meter of respondents without notice to the
latter. Petitioners did not controvert
these findings except to point out that respondents’ minor daughter was around
and that Norberto Quijano was advised of the
disconnection.[36] The presence of respondents' daughter did not
excuse petitioners from notifying respondents prior to the disconnection. The advise to
Norberto Quijano was also belated for it was given
only after the fact of disconnection.
The purpose of the notice requirement is to afford electric consumers
opportunity to witness the inspection and protect themselves from contrived
discovery of tampering. They must also
be allowed to dispute any accusation of electricity pilferage. This purpose is not served by allowing
inspection teams to swoop down on unsuspecting consumers.
In fine, petitioners abused the remedies available to them
under P.D. No. 401 and Revised General Order No. 1 by outrightly
depriving respondents of electrical services, without first notifying the
latter of any differential billing or informing them that their electrical
services would be disconnected should they fail to settle their account. The CA, therefore, did not err in affirming
the RTC.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The September 7, 1999 Decision of the Court of
Appeals is AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioners.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Salome A. Montoya (now retired) and Teodoro P. Regino (now retired); rollo, p. 49.
[2] Entitled “Sps. Norberto Quijano and Estrella Quijano, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus Samar Electric Cooperative, Inc., and Baltazar Dacula, Defendants-Appellants.”
[3] Rollo, p. 70.
[4] Based on Exhibits “4-C,” “4-D,” “4-E,” “4-F,” “4-G,” “4-H,” “4-I,” “4-J,” “4-K,” “5-C,” “5-D,” and “5-E.” which petitioners cited on page 29 of the Petition which were not disputed by respondent in its Comment, and, based on the November 6, 1990 RTC Order, respondents did not question the existence and authenticity of said exhibits.
[5] CA Decision, p. 2; rollo, p. 50.
[6] Rollo, p. 64.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Petition for Review, rollo, pp. 31-42.
[13] Meralco v. Jose, G.R. No. 152769, February 14, 2007;
Meralco v. Judge Navarro-Domingo, G.R. No. 161893, June 27, 2006,
493 SCRA 363, 367; Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Judge, Regional
Trial Court, Davao City, Br. 8, G.R. No. 147058,
March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 272, 281-284; Meralco v.
Macro Textile Mills Corporation, 424 Phil. 811, 813 (2002).
[14] 429 Phil. 727 (2002)
[15] Petition, rollo, pp.43-44.
[16] Civil Service Commission v. Joson, Jr., G.R. No. 154674, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 773, 786.
[17] Judge Leynes v. Commission on Audit, 463 Phil. 557, 571 (2003).
[18] Silva v. Mationg, G.R. No. 160174,
[19]
[20]
Fabia v. Court of
Appeals, 415 Phil. 656, 662 (2001); Sta. Clara Homeowners’ Association
v. Sps. Gaston, 425 Phil. 221, 239 (2002).
[21] Rollo, p. 7.
[22] Sps. Quisumbing v. Meralco, supra note 14, at 749.
[23] Rollo, pp. 114-116.
[24] CA Decision, rollo, pp. 53-54.
[25]
[26] Article 429 of the Civil Code reads:
The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonable to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.
[27] Republic v. Manila Electric Company, 440 Phil. 389, 397 (2002).
[28] Manila Electric Company v. Hon. Lorna Navarro-Domingo, G.R. No. 161893, June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA 363, 371.
[29] Anti-Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines/Materials Pilferage Act (December 8, 1994).
[30] Sec. 6. Disconnection of Electric Service. - The private electric utility or rural electric cooperative concerned shall have the right and authority to disconnect immediately the electric service after serving a written notice or warning to that effect, without the need of a court or administrative order, and deny restoration of the same, when the owner of the house or establishment concerned or someone acting in his behalf shall have been caught en flagrante delicto doing any of the acts enumerated in Section 4(a) hereof, or when any of the circumstances so enumerated shall have been discovered for the second time: Provided, That in the second case, a written notice or warning shall have been issued upon the first discovery: Provided, further, That the electric service shall not be immediately disconnected or shall be immediately restored upon the deposit of the amount representing the differential billing by the person denied the service, with the private electric utility or rural electric cooperative concerned or with the competent court, as the case may be: Provided, furthermore, That if the court finds that illegal use of electricity has not been committed by the same person, the amount deposited shall be credited against future billings, with legal interest thereon chargeable against the private utility or rural electric cooperative, and the utility or cooperative shall be made to immediately pay such person double the value of the payment or deposit with legal interest, which amount shall likewise be creditable against immediate future billings, without prejudice to any criminal, civil or administrative action that such person may be entitled to file under existing laws, rules and regulations: Provided, finally, That if the court finds the same person guilty of such illegal use of electricity, he shall, upon final judgment, be made to pay the electric utility or rural electric cooperative concerned double the value of the estimated electricity illegally used which is referred to in this section as differential billing.
For purposes of this Act, "differential billing" shall refer to the amount to be charged to the person concerned for the unbilled electricity illegally consumed by him as determined through the use of methodologies which utilize, among others, as basis for determining the amount of monthly electric consumption in kilowatt-hours to be billed, either: (a) the highest recorded monthly consumption within the five-year billing period preceding the time of the discovery, (b) the estimated monthly consumption as per the report of load inspection conducted during the time of discovery, (c) the higher consumption between the average consumptions before or after the highest drastic drop in consumption within the five-year billing period preceding the discovery, (d) the highest recorded monthly consumption within four (4) months after the time of discovery, or (e) the result of the ERB test during the time of discovery and, as basis for determining the period to be recovered by the differential billing, either: (1) the time when the electric service of the person concerned recorded an abrupt or abnormal drop in consumption, or (2) when there was a change in his service connection such as a change of meter, change of seal or reconnection, or in the absence thereof, a maximum of sixty (60) billing months, up to the time of discovery: Provided, however, That such period shall, in no case, be less than one (1) year preceding the date of discovery of the illegal use of electricity.
[31] Sec. 7. Penalties.-
1. Violation of Section 2 - The penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from Ten
thousand pesos (P10,000) to Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000) or
both, at the discretion of the court, shall be imposed on any person found
guilty of violating Section 2 hereof.
2. Violation
of Section 3 - The penalty of reclusion temporal or a fine
ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) to One hundred thousand
pesos (P100,000) or both, at the discretion of the court, shall be
imposed on any person found guilty of violating Section 3 hereof.
3. Provision
common to violations of Section 2 and Section 3 hereof - If the offense is
committed by, or in connivance with, an officer or employee of the power
company, private electric utility or rural electric cooperative concerned, such
officer or employee shall, upon conviction, be punished with a penalty one (1)
degree higher than the penalty provided herein, and forthwith be dismissed and
perpetually disqualified from employment in any public or private utility or
service company and from holding any public office.
If, in committing any of the acts
enumerated in Section 4 hereof, any of the other acts as enumerated is also
committed, then the penalty next higher in degree as provided herein shall be
imposed.
If the offense is committed by, or
in connivance with an officer or employee of the electric utility concerned,
such officer or employee shall, upon conviction, be punished with a penalty one
(1) degree higher than the penalty provided therein, and forthwith be dismissed
and perpetually disqualified from employment in any public or private utility
or service company. Likewise, the electric utility concerned which shall have
knowingly permitted or having knowledge of its commission shall have failed to
prevent the same, or was otherwise guilty of negligence in connection with the
commission thereof, shall be made to pay a fine not exceeding triple the amount
of the "differential billing" subject to the discretion of the
courts.
If the violation is committed by a
partnership, firm, corporation, association or any other legal entity,
including a government-owned or -controlled corporation, the penalty shall be
imposed on the president, manager and each of the officers thereof who shall
have knowingly permitted, failed to prevent or was otherwise responsible for
the commission of the offense.
[32] Sec. 8. Authority to Impose Violation of Contract Surcharges.
- A private electric utility or rural electric cooperative may impose
surcharges, in addition to the value of the electricity pilfered, on the bills
of any consumer apprehended for tampering with his electric meter/metering
facility installed on his premises, as well as other violations of contract
like direct connection, use of jumper, and other means of illicit usage of
electricity found installed in the premises of the consumer. The surcharge for
the violation of contract shall be collected from and paid by the consumer
concerned as follows:
First apprehension - Twenty-five
percent (25%) of the current bill as surcharge;
Second apprehension - Fifty percent
(50%) of the current bill as surcharge; and
Third and subsequent apprehension -
One hundred percent (100%) of the current bill as surcharge.
The private electric utility or rural electric cooperative is
authorized to discontinue the electric service in case the consumer is in
arrears in the payment of the above imposed surcharges.
The term "apprehension"
as used herein shall be understood to mean the discovery of the presence of any
of the circumstances enumerated in Section 4 hereof in the establishment or
outfit of the consumer concerned.
[33] Penalizing the Unauthorized Installation of Water, Electrical or Telephone Connections, the Use of Tampered Water or Electrical Meter, and Other Acts (March 1, 1974); as amended by P.D. No. 401-A.
[34] Ridjo
Tape and Chemical Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 350 Phil. 184, 193
(1998); Manila Electric Company v. Jose, G.R. No. 152769,
[35]
Manila
Electric Company v. Court of Appeals, No. L-39019,
January 22, 1988, 157 SCRA 243, 247, citing Revised General Order No. 1 of the
Public Service Commission; Ceniza v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 95296, February 3, 1993, 218 SCRA 390, 400.
[36] Petition, rollo, p. 40.