SC rules in favor of consumers against Meralco

UPHOLDING consumers’ rights, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) has no right to cut its services and impose additional charges on its consumers suspected of tampering with their electric meters without sufficient evidence to prove it.

The High Court, in a 26-page decision written by Associate Justice Arturo Brion, ordered Meralco to restore the electric power connection at the residence of spouses Edito and Felicidad Chua and pay them P100,000 as moral damages.

Its order affirmed the October 20, 2003 decision by the Court of Appeals (CA) that upheld with modification the March 26, 2003 resolution of Branch 82 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

According to the High Court, the presence of a broken cover seal, broken sealing wire and a missing terminal seal were not enough to declare that the Chuas tampered with the electric meter.

It was also pointed out that Meralco failed to refute that the electric meter is in a concrete post outside the Chuas’ perimeter fence; hence, in a location accessible to the public nor it has presented any evidence that it caught the Chuas committing any of the acts constituting prima facie evidence of illegal use of electricity for the second time.

“Meralco presented no proof that it ever caught the Chuas, or anyone acting in the Chuas’ behalf, in the act of tampering with their electric meter. As correctly observed by the CA, the Chuas could not have been caught in flagrante delicto committing the tampering since in the first place, they were the ones who reported the defect in their meter,” the Supreme Court ruled.

The High Court noted that the Chuas’ monthly electric consumption remained virtually unchanged even after the defective electric meter had been replaced, which disproved Meralco’s claim of a tampered electric meter that registered less than the electricity actually “consumed.”

It said that Meralco should have exerted efforts to investigate the Chuas’ complaint regarding the sudden increase in their electric bill, considering that complainants had not done anything on the meter or used any additional appliances during the period covered by the assailed billing.

As to the P100,000 payment for moral damages, the High Court explained that it was just compensation for the extreme social humiliation and embarrassment that the Chuas had suffered after Meralco abruptly and without legal basis cut off their electricity.

Case records showed that in 1996, the Chuas questioned their 1,297 kilowatt hours consumption, amounting to P4,906.87 for the period September 11 to October 11, 1996. The bill was 553 percent higher than their previous monthly billings.

Meralco then replaced the old meter and installed a new one after it was found that the old meter has been allegedly tampered with.

Demand letters

The Chuas subsequently received demand letters from Meralco which had accused them of tampering with the electric meter and had billed them P183,983.66. When they refused to pay, Meralco disconnected their electric supply.

Under the law, Meralco is only authorized to immediately disconnect the electric service of its consumers without the need of a court or administrative order when the consumer, or someone acting in his behalf, is caught and when any of the circumstances constituting prima facie evidence of illegal use of electricity is discovered for the second time.

“Meralco is duty-bound to explain to its customers the basis for arriving at any given billing, particularly in cases of unregistered consumptions. Otherwise, consumers will stand piteously at the public utility’s mercy. 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 entitlement,” the High Court said in its ruling.  –William B. Depasupil, Reporter with report from Ruben D. Manahan 4th, Manila Times