|
MANILA
ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, - versus - AGUIDA VDA.
DE Respondent. |
G.R. No. 170482
Present: Quisumbing, J.,
Chairperson, Carpio
Morales, ABAD, JJ. Promulgated: September 4, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
QUISUMBING, J.:
This petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Decision[1] dated P65,819.75[4] in her electric billing. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the
RTC’s decision and found that Aguida had been deprived of electricity without
due process of law. It ordered Meralco
to pay Aguida moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees and dismissed
Meralco’s claim for differential billing.
The facts of the case, as
summarized by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:
Respondent Aguida vda. de Santiago
is the widow of the late Jose Santiago, a registered customer of petitioner
Meralco. Since the death of her husband
in October 1990, Aguida, along with her daughter Elsa, her five grandchildren
and a housemaid, have been living in their residential house located at No. 26,
Purok I Meyto, Calumpit, Bulacan, under the same contract of service entered
into by Jose Santiago.
On
After inspection, Cruz found that a
self-grounding wire connected to the electric meter was being used to deflect
the actual consumption of electricity. Cruz
immediately disconnected the electric service and prepared a Meter/Socket
Inspection Report[5] and Notice of Disconnection[6] which Aguida was made to sign. Thereafter, Cruz demanded payment of a
differential billing amounting to P65,819.75. On the same day, Aguida filed a protest with
the Malolos branch of Meralco and its main office in Ortigas,
Meralco, on the other hand, relied on Cruz’ report and
sent a differential billing to Aguida totaling P385,467.10. It likewise invoked the provisions of the
contract of service and Republic Act No. 7832,[7] otherwise known as the “Anti-Electricity
and Electric Transmission Lines/Materials Pilferage Act of 1994,” to justify
its right to effect immediate disconnection of the electric service.[8]
On
In a Decision dated P65,819.75
differential billing. The dispositive
portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of defendants
[Meralco and Antonio Cruz] and against plaintiff [Aguida vda. de
1. dismissing
plaintiff’s Complaint for damages against defendants Manila Electric Company
(Meralco) and Antonio Cruz;
2. ordering
plaintiff or her representative to pay or deposit with defendant Manila
Electric Company (Meralco) the “differential billing” in the amount of
Sixty-Five Thousand Eight Hundred Nineteen Pesos and Seventy-Five Centavos (P65,819.75),
Philippine currency, within ten (10) days from receipt of this Decision; and
3. ordering
defendant Manila Electric Company (Meralco) to immediately restore or reconnect
its electric service to plaintiff at [the] latter’s residence at No. 26, Purok
1, Meyto, Calumpit, Bulacan, under the name of registered customer Jose
Santiago, Aguida Vda. de Santiago, as user, upon payment by plaintiff of the
foregoing “differential billing” of Sixty-Five Thousand Eight Hundred Nineteen
Pesos and Seventy-Five Centavos (P65,819.75) with defendant
Meralco. In the interest of public service
and public interest, this particular disposition, with respect to immediate
restoration of electric service only, is immediately executory without
prejudice to any appeal that may be taken therefrom by any of the parties.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals. Meralco protested the order to pay P65,819.75,
arguing it should be P385,467.10, while Aguida argued that the RTC erred
in finding that there was a regular inspection of her residence.
On
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Decision of the RTC Branch 18, Malolos, Bulacan is
hereby SET ASIDE and REVERSED.
Defendant-appellant MERALCO is hereby ordered to pay plaintiff-appellant
the sum of P100,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 exemplary
damages plus P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees. Furthermore, MERALCO’s claim for P385,467.10
differential billing is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Finally, the MERALCO is hereby ordered to
immediately restore the electric supply of plaintiff-appellant.
SO ORDERED.[11]
Meralco’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, the instant appeal by Meralco where it
raises the following issues:
I.
WHETHER OR
NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT
PROOF THAT RESPONDENT WAS FOUND USING SELF-GROUND WIRE.
II.
WHETHER OR
NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER MERALCO DID
NOT OBSERVE DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN IT DISCONTINUED THE ELECTRIC SUPPLY OF
RESPONDENT.
III.
WHETHER OR
NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE RIGHT OF
PETITIONER TO DISCONNECT RESPONDENT’S ELECTRIC SERVICE PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF RA 7832.
IV.
WHETHER OR
NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REVERSING THE RULING OF [THE] COURT
A QUO BY AWARDING DAMAGES IN FAVOR OF
RESPONDENT.[12]
Simply, the issue is:
Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the RTC’s decision dismissing
respondent’s complaint for damages against petitioner for allegedly disconnecting
respondent’s electric service without due process of law?
At the onset, well-settled is the rule that the
Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. When
supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals
are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court,
unless the case falls under any of the following recognized exceptions:
(1) When the conclusion is
a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures;
(2) When the inference made
is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(3) Where there is a grave abuse of
discretion;
(4) When the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts;
(5) When the findings of fact are
conflicting;
(6) When the Court of
Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the
same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(7) When the findings are contrary to
those of the trial court;
(8) When the findings of
fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are
based;
(9) When the facts set
forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners’ main and reply briefs are
not disputed by the respondents; and
(10) When the findings of
fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence
and contradicted by the evidence on record.[13] (Emphasis supplied.)
As a rule, only questions of law
are entertained by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule
45. It is not our function to analyze or
weigh all over again the evidence presented.
It is a settled doctrine that in a civil case, final and conclusive are
the factual findings of the trial court, but only if supported by clear and
convincing evidence on record.[14]
In this case, the findings of the Court of Appeals are
contrary to the findings of the RTC.
Hence, a review thereof is in order.
Section 4 of Rep. Act No. 7832 states:
SEC. 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 benefitted 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 or 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, control 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 supplied.)
Under the above provision, the prima facie
presumption that will authorize immediate disconnection will arise only upon
the satisfaction of certain requisites. One of these requisites is the personal
witnessing and attestation by an officer of the law or by an authorized ERB
representative when the discovery was made.[15]
After a careful review of the evidence on record, we
affirm the appellate court’s holding that “there is no solid, strong and
satisfactory evidence to prove the alleged meter-tampering.”
The Court of Appeals correctly held:
After our careful scrutiny of the records, we find merit to
plaintiff-appellant’s appeal. We believe
that there is no solid, strong and satisfactory evidence to prove the alleged
meter-tampering. The law states that, in
order to constitute prima facie evidence of electric pilferage, the discovery
thereof must be personally witnessed and attested to by at least a police
officer or a representative of [the] Energy Regulatory Board (ERB).
Here, PO2 Chavez had allegedly witnessed and
attested to the conduct of routine inspection.
It is intriguing to note, however, that the inspection was conducted in
Calumpit, Bulacan whereas PO2 Chavez is a police officer assigned in
We are inclined to lend credence to the testimony of
plaintiff-appellant and her daughter Elsa that there was no policeman in
uniform during the inspection.
Moreover, if the meter-tampering was really committed, it could have
been discovered at the earliest opportunity during the previous inspection on
the subject meter installation conducted by [the] MERALCO, Malolos Branch in
July 1999. Besides,
plaintiff-appellant’s billing records from May 1999 to February 2000 marked as
EXHS. “A” to “A-9”, will attest to the fact that her average monthly electric
consumption ranges from 578 to 721 kwh. or with equivalent billing of P2,000
to P3000. There was no showing of
drastic changes in the billing except only for the billing period of April 16,
1999 to May 18, 1999 when it had gone up to P7,793.60 which prompted the
plaintiff-appellant to lodge a protest for investigation, re-computation and
refund for over billing. Upon
investigation, [the] MERALCO, Malolos Branch found the meter to be DEFECTIVE
but not tampered. Thus, it replaced the
defective meter but despite thereof, MERALCO did not make a corresponding
refund in favor of the plaintiff-appellant.
Furthermore, the meter was last seen in January 2000 and yet MERALCO
found no traces of meter-tampering.
Surprisingly, after barely two months from the last inspection, plaintiff-appellant
is charged of meter-tampering by defendant CRUZ.
The RTC had evidently failed to consider some relevant facts and
circumstances, which if considered, would have altered its conclusion and
judgment.[16]
Like the Court of Appeals, we are
also wary of imputing legitimacy or regularity to the acts of PO2 Chavez, who
allegedly witnessed and attested to the conduct of the inspection at
respondent’s house, since he is a police officer of
In view of the foregoing,
we affirm the ruling of the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated
|
SO ORDERED. LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
|
|
WE
CONCUR: RENATO C.
CORONA
Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice |
|
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
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
C E R T I F IC A T I O N
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
* Additional
member per Raffle of
[1] Rollo, pp. 40-55. Penned by Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria, with Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Arturo D. Brion (now a member of this Court) concurring.
[2]
[3] CA rollo, pp. 57-64. Penned by Presiding Judge Victoria C. Fernandez-Bernardo.
[4]
[5] Records, Vol. I, p. 393.
[6]
[7] An Act Penalizing the Pilferage of Electricity and Theft of Electric Power Transmission Lines/Materials, Rationalizing System Losses by Phasing Out Pilferage Losses as a Component Thereof, and for Other Purposes, approved on December 8, 1994.
[8] Records, Vol. I, p. 122.
[9]
[10] CA rollo, pp. 63-64.
[11] Rollo, p. 53.
[12]
[13] Ontimare, Jr. v. Elep, G.R. No. 159224,
[14] Vibram Manufacturing Corporation v. Manila
Electric Company, G.R. No. 149052,
[15] Quisumbing v. Meralco, G.R. No.
142943,
[16] Rollo, pp. 242-244.