Couple wins legal battle vs Meralco

The Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) was ordered to restore the electric connection of a couple after the country’s largest power distributor failed to prove that they tampered their electric meter more than a decade ago. In affirming an earlier ruling by the Court of Appeals (CA), the Supreme Court said that Meralco failed to prove that Edito and Felicidad Chua tampered their electric meter to lower their electricity bill. “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 26-page decision penned by Associate Justice Arturo Brion. Likewise, the High Court ordered Meralco to restore the power connection at the Chua residence and to pay the couple P100,000 as moral damages for “the extreme social humiliation and embarrassment" the power company brought to the Chuas for accusing them as “power thieves." Meralco, Metro Manila’s sole electricity distributor, disconnected service in the Chua residence in 1996 after the couple refused to pay a bill worth P183,983 issued after accusing the couple of tampering their electric meter due to its broken cover seal and wirings. Meralco is allowed to immediately disconnect its electric service only if it catches a consumer in the act of tampering an electric meter or if it discovers that a consumer is illegally using the electricity it provides for the second time, the High Court said. None of these circumstances were present in the case of the Chuas, since their electric meter was accessible to the public and any case of tampering can be easily seen, the Supreme Court said. In the same ruling, the SC also reminded Meralco of its responsibility to explain the basis of its billings to consumers. “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 decision read. "As MERALCO has failed to substantiate its claim for differential billing, we rule that the Chuas cannot be held to account for the billed amount," it added. - RJAB Jr/KBK, GMANews.TV