Quisumbing v.

MERALCO

FACTS
 Sps. Quisumbing own a house in Greenmeadows. They alleged to be business entrepreneurs
exporting furnitures under ‘Loran Industries’ (basta daming award pati mga Rotary shit).
 On March 3, 1995, 9AM, Meralco inspector Orlino was assigned to do a routine-on-the-spot inspection
of all single phase meters in Greenmeadows.
o After the standard procedure of asking and being granted permission (through Sps.’ secretary),
he discovered that the terminal seal of the meter was missing; the meter covering the seal was
deformed; meter dials were misaligned; there were scratches on the base plate.
o This was relayed to the secretary, who relayed it to Sps. Q. Lorna Q was outraged and denied
tampering liability.
o They were advised that the meter had to be detached and brought to the lab for verification
(may lab pala sa meralco). If found to be tampered, they had to temporarily disconnect services.
 Lab tests found: missing terminal seal; lead cover seals were tampered by forcefully pulling out from
sealing wire; the 1000th, 100th, and 10th dial pointers were misaligned with circular scratches at the face
– indicates that it had been opened for manipulation to set manually; and meter terminal blades were
full of scratches.
 After an hour, Orlina returned to the house and informed them of the findings and unless they pay
P178,875.01 in differential billings, their electric supply would be disconnected as per standard
operating procedure.
o They were futher advised that questions re: findings and disconnection for Violation of Contract
may be settled with the legal service dept.
o However, on the same day, a Meralco officer radioed Orlino to reconnect – they complied with.
 On March 6, 1995 (ang bilis ng mga pangyayari), Sps Q. filed a complaint for damages with prayer for
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, despite reconnection, alleging that Meralco inspectors acted
with wanton capricious, malicious and malevolent manner in disconnecting their power supply which
was done without due process, and without due regard for their rights, feelings, peace of mind, social
and business reputation.
o Meralco’s answer: admitted disconnection but denied liability citing Terms and Conditions of
Service and Pilferage Act.
 Trial court ruled in favor of Sps. Q, holding that Meralco should have given them ample opportunity to
dispute the findings and that they should not have acted summarily and without procedural due process
in the immediate disconnection – damages from quasi delict.
 CA overturned RTC; they acted in good faith, followed SOP, and there was no proof of the claim for
quasi delict damages; also upheld Meralco’s counterclaim for the billing differential in the amount of
P193,332 representing the value of Sps. Q’s used but unregistered electrical consumption, which had
been established without being controverted.

ISSUES + RULING
Did Meralco observe requisites of law when it disconnected Sps. Q? NO, there was no due process.
 Sps Q: immediate disconnection was not validly effected because of noncompliance with Pilferage Law.
Such may only be done when there is prima facie evidence of its illegal use.
o To constitute prima facie evidence, discovery must be “personally witnessed and attested to by
an officer of the law or by an authorized ERB representative.”
 Meralco: issue is a question of fact (whether may authorized officer or wala) + issue is being raised for
the first time + no specific proof that there was no authorized officer.
 Sps Q. are correct.
Section 4 of RA 7832 states:
(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, x x x x x x x x
xxxx
(viii) x x x 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).
o Under this provision, the presumption only arises upon satisfaction of certain requisites, one of
which is the officer/ERB rep.
 As a rule, though, Court may only pass upon questions of law BUT it may pass upon evidence when
the RTC factual findings are different from the CA’s, as in this case. Evidence negates CA holding that
Meralco acted in accordance with the law. Their own witnesses proved this as Orlino and Macaraig
(area head of Orlino’s team) testified that only Metalco’s inspection team (4 inspectors) and the
secretary were present.
o Obviously, there was no officer of the law or ERB representative at that time.
o Re: argument that the secretary was present naman, had the law intended the presence of the
owner or his/her representative to suffice, then it should have said so.
o Where the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to mean exactly what it says, and
courts have no choice but to see to it that the mandate is obeyed. In fact, Senate delibs on RA
7832 show that Osmeña, its author, stressed the need for the presence of government officers
during inspections for verification and substantiation.
 Meralco also argued that there was an ERB rep when the meter was brought to the lab – law says
BEFORE immediate disconnection, the discovery must be personally witnessed…the lab presence of
the ERB rep therefore will not cure the defect.
o It is undisputed that immediately after the team conducted their inspection, they disconnected
Sps Q. This was verified by Orlina’s testimony (ito yung outraged si Mrs Q).
o 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. Chos Besides, even if not specifically raised, this Court has already ruled
that „[w]here the issues already raised also rest on other issues not specifically presented, as
long as the latter issues bear relevance and close relation to the former and as long as they
arise from matters on record, the Court has the authority to include them in its discussion of the
controversy as well as to pass upon them.
 Neither may Meralco rely on its contractual right to disconnect based on Board of Energy (now ERB)
decisions because the decisions cited concern discontinuance of service.
o Sps Q’s situation can fall under disconnection only “in case of or to prevent fraud upon the
Company.” However, this too has requisites before a disconnection may be made. An adjusted
bill shall be prepared, and only upon failure to pay it may the company discontinue service. This
is also true in regard to the provisions of Revised Order No. 1 of the former Public Service
Commission, which requires a 48-hour written notice before a disconnection may be justified. In
the instant case, these requisites were obviously not complied with.

Does the disconnection entitle Sps. Q to damages? NO – actual damages; YES – moral and exemplary
damages and atty’s fees.
 Sps Q are asking for the reinstatement of the RTC Decision, which awarded them actual, moral and
exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees. All these were overturned by the CA.
o Re: actual damages – competent proof is necessary and in this case only Mrs Q’s testimony
was offered that they had an annual furniture exhibit in their house that they had to transfer to
another venue because it was embarrassing so they spent +P50k – self-serving and
speculative, even if Meralco did not rebut.
o Re: moral damages – entitled but to a reduced to 100k. consumers. Meralco having a virtual
monopoly of the supply of electric power should refrain from taking drastic actions against the
consumers without observing due process. Even assuming that the subject meter has had
history of meter tampering, defendant cannot simply assume that the present occupants are the
ones responsible for such tampering. Neither does it serve as a license to deprive the plaintiffs
of their right to due process. They should have given the plaintiffs simple opportunity to dispute.
 Art 2219, CC: moral damages 1 may be recovered in cases where an individual’s rights (to
property, in this case) is deprived without due process.
 Meralco v. CA: required to give notice of disconnection to an alleged delinquent
customer. Among others, a prior written notice to the customer is required before
disconnection of the service. Failure to give such prior notice amounts to a tort. “There is
a right way to do the right thing at the right time for the right reason.” lol
o Re: exemplary damages and atty’s fees: they needed a lawyer – 50k

Are Sps Q liable for the billing differential? YES.

 Meralco should be given what it rightfully deserves. Evidence sufficiently proves liability – lab findings +
computation testified to by senior billing computer Enrique Katipunan and was corroborated by docs
evidencing billing history.
 Defense of Sps. Q – Contract to Sell with Assumption of Mortgage does not necessarily mean that they
are no longer liable for the billing differential. There was no sufficient evidence to show that they were
not actually residing in the house before the date of the said document. Lorna Q herself admitted that
they did not have any contract for electrical service in their own name. Hence, petitioners effectively
assumed the bills of the former occupants of the premises.

1Case law establishes the following requisites for the award of moral damages: (1) there is an injury whether physical, mental
or psychological·clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) there is a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) the
wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award of
damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.