Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
|
|
G.R. No. 152769 |
|
COMPANY, |
|
|
|
Petitioner, |
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., |
|
|
|
Chairperson, |
|
- versus - |
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
|
|
CALLEJO,
SR., |
|
|
|
CHICO-NAZARIO,
and |
|
|
|
*NACHURA,
JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
MA. VICTORIA JOSE, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
February
14, 2007 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
Sought to be annulled in this Petition
for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is the March 26, 2002 Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 63590[2]
which affirmed the June 1, 1999 Decision[3]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Civil Case No. Q-95-25685.
Ma.
Victoria D. Jose (Victoria) has been a Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) customer
since 1987 with Account No. 14419-2260-23, Meter No. 31D551-57, and service
address at No. 26,
On
On
P232,385.20[7]
and attached to it the following explanation:
A
review of your billing record of your electric service at the above address
shows that the billing rendered from Jan. 29, 1993 to Jul. 04, 1995 were affected
by the metering defects (burned out insulation of BCT) found and corrected on
July. 14, 1995. This defect caused the
meter not to register the correct KWH consumption, in particular, the KWH meter
registered only 50% of the consumption.
We
have adjusted the affected bills by correcting the registration from 50% to
100% in order to account for the unbilled consumption.
The
corrected bill less payment made for the affected period gives a difference of P232,385.20
and is therefore collectible from your account.[8]
(Emphasis ours)
In
a Letter dated
Meralco did not accede to her request
but offered an installment payment scheme. It clarified that the differential billing was
validly issued because “xxx the Polyphase Meter Test Report and Power Metering
Field Order that we have furnished you on
This
friendly notice is to remind you that payment for your account has not been
received. Please pay on or before the
expiration date of this notice in order to avoid the inconvenience of disconnection
of your service.[11]
The expiration date was set on
This prompted
After trial on the merits, on
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered for the plaintiff and
against the defendant, ordering the defendant to:
1.
Permanently desist from collecting the amount of P232,385.20
for the so called “unbilled consumption” from the plaintiff and to permanently
desist from cutting off electric service from plaintiff’s residence,
permanently [sic] desist [sic].
2. Pay moral damages in the amount of P500,000.00;
exemplary damages in the amount of P500,000.00; attorney’s fees in the
amount of P100,000.00; and
3. Pay the costs of the suit.
SO
ORDERED.[16]
Meralco
filed an appeal to the CA which, in a Decision[17]
dated
Without filing a motion for
reconsideration from the CA Decision, Meralco filed the present Petition, citing
the following grounds:
A.
The Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in holding that
petitioner is liable to pay respondent moral damages, exemplary damages, and
attorney’s fees.
B.
The Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in ruling that the
petitioner is not entitled to recover the unregistered consumption arising from
the defect in respondent’s meter.[18]
We shall resolve the second
issue ahead of the first.
An injunctive writ issues only upon
showing that: a) the applicant possesses a clear and unmistakable right; b)
there is a material and substantial invasion of such right; and c) there is
urgent and permanent necessity for an injunctive writ to prevent serious
damage.[19]
Meralco contends that the first
element was not proven as P232,385.20. Meralco claims that by
such refusal to pay, P232,385.20[20]
because it was found that due to defects in Meter No. 31D551-57, only 50% of
the latter’s actual electric consumption was registered and billed.
On the other hand,
Meralco’s
position is untenable.
The service
contract between Meralco and Victoria stipulates that “xxx [in] the event of
the stoppage or the failure by any meter to register the full amount of energy
consumed, the Customer shall be billed for such period on an estimated
consumption based upon his use of energy in a similar period of like use or the
registration of a check meter.” [23]
Under this provision,
We have declared such provision to be
valid and binding.[24]
Its
rationale is to allow Meralco or any electric company a measure of
self-preservation and protection in situations where the highly technical
machinery, equipment and devices it utilizes in the operation of its business
break down or become worn out that they fail to register the correct level of
electric consumption and prevent the proper billing of their users.[25]
However, the right of Meralco to
collect on differential billings is not without limitation. Before it may exercise such right, Meralco
must establish the factual basis for differential billing. Specifically, in this case, it must prove: a)
that Meter No. 31D551-57 was defective; b) that, being defective, Meter No.
31D551-57 failed to register the actual electric consumption of
Agreeing with the RTC, the CA held
that Meralco failed to prove the factual basis for charging
But
whether plaintiff-appellee is liable for her alleged unregistered consumption
is entirely a different matter. We agree
with the trial court that based on the evidence presented by both parties, the
trial court found that there is no significant difference in the energy
consumed by the plaintiff-before the so-called defective period (January 29,
1993 to July 4, 1995) and the defective period itself. The court said:
First, there was no proven
dramatic increase nor decrease between the KWH consumption of the plaintiff
before
Q: Just to make it clear so we will not be
confused, Mr. Witness. This Exhibit AA-1 is a part of the period during which
the brushing transformer of Mrs. Jose which is alleged found to be defective by
you company and AA-2 is the period during which no defect found by your
company. Now, can you please tell this Honorable Court whether or not you see
any dramatic increase in the kilowatt consumption between thiss AA-1 and AA-2,
by dramatic I mean a 50% increase and decrease?
Court: AA-1 that is prior to
Atty. Sugayan: This
is supposedly “defective period”. Exhibit
AA-2 is the period prior to the “defective period”.
Witness: I can see no sudden increase or sudden drop in
kilowatt consumption.
Court: Well, can you clarify Mr. Witness because the
counsel is asking you what is the difference.
Atty. Sugayan: If
there is a dramatic increase or decrease.
Court: Between AA-1 which is found to be alleged
“defective period” and AA-2 the bushing is perfect.
Atty. Sugayan: Yes,
Your Honor, a dramatic meaning a 50% increase or decrease either way.
A: Based on this exhibit there is no dramatic
increase or decrease. (TSN of August 13, 1998, pp. 17-20).”
A
careful examination of the records shows that the conclusion of the trial court
is correct. To demonstrate, during the
month of September 30 to P4,569.36 for 1,529 KWH
used. This was one of the months before
the “defective period.” But, during the defective period (January 29, 1993 to
July 4, 1995) where the plaintiff-appellee surprisingly consumed 1,840 KWH for
the same billing month of 1993, particularly September 29, 1993 to October 29,
1993. There was, in fact, an increase of
consumption during the defective period, instead of an alleged 50% decrease
xxx. [26]
(Underscoring original)
We
find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of fact of the CA.
Assailing the CA findings, Meralco argues
that the report and testimony of Inoferio are expert evidence on the
defectiveness of Meter No. 31D551-57 and its failure to register 50% of the
actual electric consumption of Victoria cannot be controverted merely by the
latter’s billing history.
That
is only partly correct. The Service
Inspection Report issued by Inoferio and witnessed by an employee of
However, while the Service Inspection
Report is evidence of the defectiveness of Meter No. 31D551-57, it is not
evidence of the duration of the defect or the extent of the incapacity of said
meter to record the full electric consumption of
Instead, as aptly concluded by the CA,
the only basis of Meralco’s claim that defective Meter No. 31D551-57 registered
only 50% of the actual electric consumption of Victoria, appears to be a mere
company policy as testified to by Meralco Billing Clerk Roberto M. Salas who
said that their computation of the P230,385.20 differential billing of
Victoria Jose is based, not on any actual variable, but an existing company
policy that the maximum duration of any defects in an electric meter is two
years.[27]
Such
company policy is highly questionable, especially that it appears to have been
negated by Meralco’s
own record of
the billing history of
Contrary to Meralco’s protestation,
the billing history of
More
important, as correctly noted by the CA, Meralco acknowledged that the standard
precaution it should take in the maintenance of its electric meters is to
subject the same to polyphase meter test twice every year. It appears, however, that with reference to Meter
No. 31D551-57, the same was subjected to polyphase meter test for the first
time in 1995, or seven years from its installation in 1987. Such delay in inspection constitutes gross
negligence on the part of Meralco in the maintenance of said electric meter;
thus, it should bear sole liability for
any loss arising from the defects in said meter, including any unregistered and
unbilled electric consumption.[28] It cannot pass such liability to
Coming now to the issue on damages,
Meralco’s gross negligence in the performance of the maintenance of its devices
and equipment and its arbitrary issuance of a differential billing to Victoria brought
upon the latter much anxiety and aggravation.[29]
It should therefore be liable to her for
moral damages. It should also be liable
for exemplary damages to curb similar arbitrary practices.[30]
However, we find the award of P500,000.00
in moral damages and P500,000.00 in exemplary damages to be excessive. Moral damages and exemplary damages are not
intended to enrich the complainant in order to punish the defendant.[31]
Moral damages are for reparation of the
spiritual status quo ante; a means to assuage the moral suffering of the
complainant brought about by the culpable action of the defendant. The award of moral damages must then be commensurate to the suffering or
proportionate to the wrong committed.[32]
An award of P100,000.00
approximates the anxiety suffered by
As to exemplary damages, the purpose
in holding a defendant liable for it is deterrence.[33]
Meralco must curb its callousness toward
its customers and its inattention to its duty of keeping its facilities and
equipment well maintained. We hold it
liable for exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with modification that the award of
moral damages and exemplary damages is
reduced to P100,000.00 and P50,000.00, respectively.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
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 |
(On leave)
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
* On leave.
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice
Romeo A. Brawner (now retired) and concurred in by Associate Justices
Bienvenido L. Reyes and Eliezer R. delos
[2] Entitled “Ma. Victoria D. Jose, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus Manila Electric Company, Defendant-Appellant,” records, pp. 47-54.
[3]
[4] Exhibit “3”, Records, p. 181.
[5]
Exhibit “1”,
*
Bushing current transformer.
[6] Exhibit “2”, Records, p. 180.
[7] Records, p. 11.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Exhibit “D”, Records, p. 25.
[13] Records, p. 1.
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] CA rollo, p. 122.
[18] Rollo, p. 14.
[19]
Bank of the Philippine
[20] Petition, Rollo, pp. 21-23.
[21]
Exhibits “D” through
“Y-1”,
[22]
Comment,
[23]
Record, p. 200.
[24]
Ridjo Tape and Chemical
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 350 Phil. 184, 192 (1998).
[25]
Manila Electric Company v.
Macro Textile Mills Corporation, 424 Phil. 811, 827 (2002).
[26] CA Decision, CA rollo, pp. 128-129.
[27]
[28] Davao
Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Opena, G.R. No. 129807,
[29]
Cagungun v. Planters
Development Bank, G.R. No. 158674,
[30]
Estolas v. Acena, G.R.
No. 157070,
[31] Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127473, December 8, 2003, 417 SCRA 196, 212.
[32] YHT Realty Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126780, February 17, 2005, 451 SCRA 638, 662.
[33]
Solidbank Corporation v. Arrieta,
G.R. No. 152720,