Article 20 Case Digest: Sps. Quisumbing Vs. Meralco

SPOUSES ANTONIO AND LORNA QUISUMBING, PETITIONER VS. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), RESPONDENT
G.R. NO. 142943, APRIL 3, 2002
FACTS:
    On March 3, 1995, the respondents took a routine check of all single phased meters in Green Meadows avenue. The house owned by the petitioners was one of the houses that was inspected. The petitioners was not around at the of the inspection, the petitioners asked permission from the petitioners through their secretary. The secretary witnessed the inspection. Upon inspection, the respondents discovered that the terminal seal of the meter was missing, the meter cover seal was deformed, the meter dials of the meter was mis-aligned and there were scratches on the meter base plate. This was a clear sign that the meter has been tampered. The petitioners denied liability for the tampering. The respondent then, temporarily disconnected the electric services of the petitioners until they pay the amount of P178,875.01 representing the differential billing. 

    On March 6, 1995, the petitioners filed a complaint for damages alleging that defendant acted with wanton, capricious, malicious and malevolent manner in disconnecting their power supply which was done without due process and without due regard to their rights, feelings, peace of mind, social, and business reputation. 

    The trial ruled that the petitioner had acted summarily and without due process in immediately disconnecting the electric service of the petitioners. The Court of Appeals overturned the trial courts ruling and dismissed the complaint. It held that the respondent's representative acted in good faith when they disconnected that petitioner's electric service. Citing testimonial and documentary evidence, it ruled that the disconnection was made only after observing due process. Further, it noted that petitioners had not been able to prove their claim for damages. 

ISSUES:
    1. Whether or not such disconnection entitled petitioners to damages.
    2. Whether or not petitioners are liable for the billing differential computed by respondent.

RULING:
    1. Yes. Petitioner's claim for damages is based on the statement of the petitioner that they had to cancel prior business plans because of the disconnected electricity that the respondent did. They had to cancel the the catering service that they booked at which the petitioner claimed to have cost them P50,000. They had failed to show how they arrived at the amount of P50,000, it is at best, speculative. 

    Having said that, we agree with the trial court, however, that petitioners are entitled to moral damages, albeit in a reduced amount. Article 2219 of the Civil Code lists the instances when moral damage may be recovered. One such case is when the rights of individuals, including the right against deprivation of property without due process of law, are violated.

    2. Yes. This Court holds that despite the basis for the award of damages, the lack of due process in immediately disconnecting petitioners' electrical supply, respondent's counterclaim for the billing differential is still proper. We agree with the CA that respondent should be given what it rightfully deserves. The evidence it presented, both documentary and testimonial, sufficiently proved the amount of the differential.

Not only did respondent show how the meter examination had been conducted by its experts, but it also established the amount of ₱193,332.96 that petitioners owed respondent. The procedure through which this amount was arrived at was testified to by Meralco's Senior Billing Computer Enrique Katipunan. His testimony was corroborated by documentary evidence showing the account's billing history and the corresponding computations. Neither do we doubt the documents of inspections and examinations presented by respondent to prove that, indeed there had been meter tampering that resulted in unrecorded and unpaid electrical consumption.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Article 91 - Family Code and Case: Nobleza Vs. Nuega, G.R. No. 193038

Article 91           Unless otherwise provided in this chapter or in the marriage settlements, the community property shall consist of all the property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage or acquired thereafter.           The law provides for two kinds of properties that shall form part of the absolute community of properties; namely, (1) All properties owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage;           (2) All properties acquired after the celebration of the marriage.           The law provides, however, that even if the parties are governed by the absolute community, they may agree that some properties be exempted form its coverage. If that is so, then, the ante-nuptial agreement embodied in their law further provides that there are proper...
Read more

Article 39, Case Digest - Family Code: Wiegel vs. Judge Sempio-Diy

  LILIA OLIVA WIEGEL, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE ALICIA V. SEMPIO-DIY (as presiding judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City) and KARL HEINZ WIEGEL, respondents. G.R. No. L-53703 August 19, 1986 PARAS, J.: Facts:           This a petition for certiorari for the declaration of nullity of marriage of the petitioner, Lilia Wiegel and respondent, Karl Heinz Wiegel, by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City.           Herein respondent claims that his marriage to the petitioner is void because of an existing marriage prior to their marriage. The petitioner contends that her first marriage was void because they forced to enter in the said marriage. Moreover, the petitioner assails that her first husband had a prior existing marriage, therefore, making the marriage void.           Respondent jud...
Read more