Case Digest (G.R. No. 164785)
Facts:
Manila Electric Company v. Wilcon Builders Supply, Inc., G.R. No. 171534, June 30, 2008, the Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.Manila Electric Company (Meralco) is a public utility engaged in distribution and sale of electric power; Wilcon Builders Supply, Inc. is one of its registered customers (Account No. 05380-0800-19). On January 17, 1991 Meralco’s service inspectors conducted a routine inspection of the electric meter at Wilcon’s premises. The inspection, witnessed by Wilcon’s president and general manager, produced a Service Inspection Report, a Power Metering Field Order and a Meter Removal Form: the meter was removed and brought to Meralco’s office for laboratory (Polyphase) testing.
The laboratory Report indicated a missing terminal seal, tampered lead cover seals (cut sealing wire), misaligned 1000th/100th/10th dial pointers and scratches on the register face — circumstances the Report said evidenced that the meter had been opened and the dial pointers manually set. On February 20, 1991 Meralco demanded payment of P250,565.59 for alleged unregistered consumption (VOC Billing Unit used November 17, 1983–November 20, 1984 as basis); a final demand followed on December 6, 1991. Meralco filed Civil Case No. 64678 for recovery of differential billing, interest and attorney’s fees.
Wilcon denied tampering, explaining the drop in consumption was caused by installation (June 6, 1981) and eventual breakdown (began 1985, nonfunctional by 1986) of a 7.5-ton air-conditioning unit; it also alleged Meralco had offered a reduced settlement. At pre-trial the parties narrowed the issues to tampering, authorship/fault, liability for the claimed amount, attorney’s fees, Wilcon’s counterclaim and entitlement to discounted rate. Trial ensued.
On June 29, 1998 the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 262, Pasig City, rendered judgment for Meralco ordering Wilcon to pay P187,924.19 (actual damages), attorney’s fees of P10,000 and costs. The RTC credited Meralco’s evidence as authentic, held the meter had been tampered with and applied a disputable presumption that Wilcon was responsible because the tampered meter was installed on its premises; the court nonetheless gave a 25% discount for the non-use of the air-conditioning unit.
Wilcon appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) via ordinary appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 60723). On June 30, 2005 the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision, finding that the decreased consumption was explained by the air-conditioning unit’s breakdown and not by tampering; the CA also applied the doctrine in Ridjo Tape & Chemical Corp. v. Court of Appeals (the “Ridjo doctrine”) to find Meralco negligen...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the Ridjo Tape doctrine apply to a claimed case of meter tampering such that Meralco’s failure to inspect and repair bars or limits its differential-billing claim?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in substituting its own factual findings for those of the trial court?
- Was the Court of Appeals wrong to dismiss Meralco’s differential-billing claim notwithstanding public-benefit considerations under statutes such as Republic A...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)