SECOND DIVISION
|
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, - versus - HSING Respondent. |
G.R. No. 178913 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO
MORALES, TINGA, VELASCO,
JR., and BRION, JJ.
Promulgated: February 12, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
On
October 8, 1999, employees of the Manila Electric Co. (MERALCO) conducted an
inspection of the electric meters bearing serial numbers 91SA12293 and 91GDQ1476
installed in the office premises of Hsing Nan Tannery Phils., Inc. (respondent). The inspection was witnessed by respondent’s
representative. The MERALCO employees
found that the active and reactive meters bore fake cover seals showing
tampering, hence, the employees removed and replaced the meters with new ones
and brought the replaced meters to the laboratory for testing. MERALCO thereafter issued a differential
billing to respondent by demand letter dated November 17, 1999 and invited
respondent to a conference which did not push through, however. MERALCO thus issued another demand letter dated
February 15, 2000 to respondent.
On February 16, 2000, respondent filed
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan a Complaint[1]
for damages with application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
and/or writ of preliminary injunction against MERALCO.
In its Complaint, respondent alleged
that, inter alia, the assessment of
electric consumption reflected in the differential billing “is not only unlawful
and baseless, but arbitrary and despotic, because the same was based on mere
assumption and conjecture”; and unless the
notice of disconnection based on the unlawful differential billing is restrained,
it would suffer irreparable damages and injury.
Accordingly, respondent prayed for the award to it of P1,000,000 for
actual damages and P200,000 for attorney’s fees, plus costs of the suit.
Branch 83 of the Malolos RTC issued
the temporary restraining order prayed for by respondent.
Justifying the inspection of
respondent’s premises which was witnessed by respondent’s representative, MERALCO
counterclaimed for the payment of P7,421,397.70 as differential billing,
P200,000 for attorney’s fees, and P200,000 for exemplary damages.
For
failure of respondent to move for the setting of the case for pre-trial, Branch
83 of the Malolos RTC dismissed its complaint without prejudice, by Order[2]
dated December 18, 2000 reconsideration by respondent of which was denied.
MERALCO thus presented evidence on
its counterclaims.
By
Decision[3] of
November 7, 2003, the trial court held respondent liable for manipulating the
electric meters and ordered it to pay the differential billing in the
above-stated amount, and attorney’s fees and exemplary damages in the amounts
of P50,000 and P100,000, respectively, observing that as
respondent benefited from consuming the electricity, it could not be allowed to
unjustly enrich itself at MERALCO’s expense.
Respondent
appealed to the Court of Appeals, maintaining that it was denied due process
when MERALCO disconnected its electrical supply and removed its meters.
By Decision[4] of
March 8, 2007, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s Decision, finding
that MERALCO failed to satisfactorily prove that it is entitled to its counterclaims.
In reversing the trial court’s
decision, the appellate court noted that only sample meters, and not the
allegedly tampered meters, were presented during the trial to demonstrate the
alleged manipulation of the meters.
The appellate court also noted that
the inspection by MERALCO left much to be desired “in terms of transparency and
fairness,” as it was conducted in the absence of any officer of the law or a
duly authorized representative of the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB), which is
now Energy Regulatory Commission, whose presence and participation are required,
to constitute prima facie presumption
of illegal use of electricity under Sec. 4 of Republic Act No. 7832 or the “Anti-Pilferage of Electricity and Theft of
Electric Transmission Lines/Materials Act of 1994.”
Because of MERALCO’s failure to
observe the requirement of the law, the appellate court found the testimony of
MERALCO’s Polyphase Inspector, Emmanuel Bautista, on the alleged meter
tampering, self-serving; and while the
laboratory testing was alleged to have been made in the presence of one
Engineer Albano as ERB representative, he was not presented in court to attest
to the veracity thereof.
The appellate court added that while the
inspection was consented to and witnessed by respondent’s representative, Chito
Bañez, MERALCO’s findings were not necessarily accurate.
Its motion for reconsideration of the
appellate court’s Decision having been denied, MERALCO filed the present
recourse.
MERALCO
maintains that the inspection was proper and lawful and in accordance with the “Terms
and Conditions of Service,”[5] as
approved by the Board of Energy in BOE Case No. 85-121, which governs its relationship
with customers; and that under the said
contract, its employees or representatives are permitted by its customers to
enter the latter’s premises in order to inspect, install, read, remove, test
and replace its apparatus for any cause – acts which could be done without the
presence of a police officer or ERB representative.
MERALCO adds that even if Sec. 4 of
Republic Act No. 7832 is made applicable to the questioned inspection, the
absence of a police officer or ERB representative does not ipso facto render the inspection illegal, for the provision only
requires the presence of said officers for the purpose of creating a prima facie evidence of tampering in the
determination of probable cause to indict a respondent; and that the allegation of tampering had been
sufficiently proven even if the questioned meters were not submitted in
evidence, given the documentary and testimonial evidence adduced during the
trial.
The
petition is bereft of merit.
Section
4 of Republic Act No. 7832 reads:
Section
4. Prima Facie Evidence. - (a)
The presence of any of the following circumstances shall constitute prima
facie evidence of illegal use of electricity, as defined in this Act, by
the person benefited thereby, and shall be the basis for: (1) the
immediate disconnection by the electric utility to such person after due notice,
(2) the holding of a preliminary investigation by the prosecutor and the
subsequent filing in court of the pertinent information, and (3) the lifting of
any temporary restraining order or injunction which may have been issued
against a private electric utility or rural electric cooperative: (i) The
presence of a bored hole on the glass cover of the electric meter, or at the
back or any other part of said meter; (ii) The presence inside the electric
meter of salt, sugar and other elements that could result in the inaccurate
registration of the meter's internal parts to prevent its accurate registration
of consumption of electricity; (iii) The existence of any wiring connection
which affects the normal operation or registration of the electric meter; (iv) The presence of a tampered, broken, or
fake seal on the meter, or mutilated, altered or tampered meter recording chart
or graph, or computerized chart, graph, or log; (v) The presence in any
part of the building or its premises which is subject to the control of the
consumer or on the electric meter, of a current reversing transformer, jumper,
shorting and/or shunting wire, and/or loop connection or any other similar
device; (vi) The mutilation, alteration, reconnection, disconnection, bypassing
or tampering of instruments, transformers, and accessories; (vii) The
destruction of, or attempt to destroy, any integral accessory of the metering
device box which encases an electric meter, or its metering accessories; and
(viii) The acceptance of money and/or other valuable consideration by any
officer of employee of the electric utility concerned or the making of such an
offer to any such officer or employee for not reporting the presence of any of
the circumstances enumerated in subparagraphs (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v),
(vi), or (vii) hereof: Provided,
however, That the discovery of any of the foregoing circumstances, in
order to constitute prima facie evidence, must be personally witnessed
and attested to by an officer of the law or
a duly authorized representative of the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB).
(b) The possession or custody of electric power transmission line/material by
any person, natural or juridical, not engaged in the transformation,
transmission or distribution of electric power, or in the manufacture of such
electric power transmission line/material shall be prima facie evidence that
such line/material is the fruit of the offense defined in Section 3 hereof and
therefore such line/material may be confiscated from the person in possession,
control or custody thereof. (Emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
It
is thus clear that for an allegation of tampering to be the basis for the
disconnection of a customer’s electric supply, the discovery of such must be
personally witnessed and attested to by an officer of the law or an ERB representative. This requirement can not be dispensed with. Quisumbing
v. Manila Electric Company[6] so
instructs:
The law says that before immediate
disconnection may be allowed, the discovery of the illegal use of
electricity must have been personally witnessed and attested to by
an officer of the law or by an authorized ERB representative.
In this case, the disconnection was effected immediately after the
discovery of the alleged meter tampering, which was witnessed only by Meralco’s
employees. That the ERB representative was allegedly present when the meter was
examined in the Meralco laboratory will not cure the defect.
x x x x
The presence of government agents who may authorize immediate disconnections go into the essence of due process. Indeed, we cannot allow respondent to act virtually as prosecutor and judge in imposing the penalty of disconnection due to alleged meter tampering. That would not sit well in a democratic country. After all, Meralco is a monopoly that derives its power from the government. Clothing it with unilateral authority to disconnect would be equivalent to giving it a license to tyrannize its hapless customers. (Emphasis supplied)
In the present case, it is admitted
that no police officer or ERB representative was present during the inspection,
removal and subsequent replacement of the electric meters alleged to have been
tampered with, hence, the requirement of the law was not complied with – a lapse
fatal to MERALCO’s cause.
MERALCO’s argument that Section 4 of
Republic Act No. 7832 applies only to criminal proceedings does not lie. Under said provision, which was earlier
quoted, the investigation by the prosecutor, as well as the subsequent filing
of the appropriate information if warranted, is only one of the courses of
action to be taken once any of the therein enumerated circumstances
establishing a prima facie case for
illegal use of electricity is discovered.
Compounding MERALCO’s faux pas was its failure to present the allegedly
tampered meters. By such failure, the
allegations of meter tampering are unsubstantiated.[7]
To grant MERALCO’s claims,
insufficient proof thereof notwithstanding, is anathema to equity and justice.
x x x To be sure, in enacting Republic Act No. 7832 and Republic Act No. 9136, the legislature did not intend to relax the rules in deciding cases of tampered electric meters. In no way can this Court grant a favorable judgment to the petitioner solely because of the benefit that the public will gain. To do so would result in unjust enrichment at the expense of the consumer accused of committing acts of tampering. Courts cannot and will not in any way blindly grant a public utility’s claim for differential billing if there is no sufficient evidence to prove such entitlement.[8] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO
ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ARTURO D.
BRION
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.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify 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] Annex “C” of Petition, rollo, pp. 38-42.
[2] Annex “E” of the Petition, rollo, pp. 56-57. Penned by Judge Guillermo P. Agloro.
[3] Annex “G” of the Petition, rollo, pp. 59-62. Penned by Judge Guillermo P. Agloro.
[4] Rollo, pp. 28-35. Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe and concurred in by Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico and Lucas P. Bersamin.
[5] Exhibit “1,” folder of exhibits.
[6] G.R. No. 142943, April 3, 2002, 380 SCRA 195, 207-208.
[7] Vide Manila Electric Company v. Macro Textile Mills Corporation, G.R. No. 126243, January 18, 2002, 374 SCRA 69.
[8] Manila Electric Company v. Wilcon Builders’ Supply, G.R. No. 171534, June 30, 2008, 556 SCRA 742, 756-757.