Case Digest (G.R. No. 196020)
Facts:
Manila Electric Company, Vicente Montero, Mr. Bondoc, and Mr. Bayona v. Nordec Philippines and/or Marvex Industrial Corp., G.R. No. 196020 and G.R. No. 196116, April 18, 2018, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. These consolidated matters are two Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, challenging the Court of Appeals’ January 21, 2011 Decision and March 9, 2011 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 85564.The dispute arose from an Agreement for Sale of Electric Energy between Manila Electric Company (Meralco) and Marvex Industrial Corporation (Service Account No. 9396-3422-15) under which Meralco installed metering devices at Marvex’s premises on January 18, 1985 and billed consumption based on the meter readings. Meralco’s inspectors found meter irregularities and alleged tampering on May 29, 1985 and again on September 18, 1985; Meralco assessed differential billing totaling P496,386.29, issued demand letters (August 7 and November 29, 1985), and disconnected service for nonpayment.
After Nordec purchased Marvex from the Development Bank of the Philippines, Nordec Philippines (represented by its president, Dr. Potenciano R. Malvar) filed suit on December 23, 1986 in Branch 85, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, impleading Meralco and several employees and seeking damages and a preliminary mandatory injunction. The RTC issued a writ directing Meralco to restore service (cited in the records as January 22, 1987). Subsequent inspections (including November 23, 1987, performed in the presence of Nordec’s president) again showed irregularities; Meralco offered to refund P5,625.10 for overbilling, which Nordec declined.
Nordec filed a second supplemental complaint (January 4, 1991). In its June 15, 2005 Decision, the RTC dismissed Nordec’s complaints, found tampering proven, held Nordec without clean hands, and granted Meralco’s counterclaim — ordering plaintiffs to pay P496,386.29, exemplary damages of P10,000, attorney’s fees of P20,000, and costs. Nordec appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 85564). On January 21, 2011, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC: it found a contractual relationship between Meralco and Nordec (as assignee/beneficial user), concluded Meralco was negligent in belatedly discovering meter irregularities, ruled Meralco failed to give the required 48-hour written disconnection notice, and awarded Nordec a P5,625 refund, exemplary damages of P200,000, attorney’s fees of P100,000, and costs. The CA denied motions for reconsideration in its March 9, 2011 Resolution.
Meralco and Nordec separately filed petitions for review with the Supreme Court (Meralco docketed as G.R. No. 196020; Nordec as G.R. No. 196116), which the Court consolidated on April 11, 2011. The parties submitted pleadings and comments raising, among others, challenges to the CA’s fact...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in making factual findings contrary to the Regional Trial Court?
- Does Nordec Philippines have a cause of action against Manila Electric Company?
- Was Meralco inexcusably negligent in disconnecting Nordec’s electric supply?
- Is Nordec entitled to actual, temperate, moral or exemplary damages, a...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)