Cases (commercial Lists)

Question 1

FACTS: Meralco team conducted their inspection at petitioner’s meter and found alleged meter tampering, they immediately disconnected petitioners’ electrical supply. During the inspection the following persons were present, four (4) MERALCO inspection personnel and the secretary of appellees. Plaintiffs-appellees filed a complaint for damages with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. On the other hand, MERALCO filed a counterclaim with respect to the unpaid bills of herein plaintiff. During the trial, MERALCO presented as witness its Senior Billing Computer Officer to testify as to the unpaid bills of the plaintiff. The said testimony as corroborated with the documentary evidence showing unpaid bills as well as the laboratory test results proving the tampering. Trial court ruled that immediate disconnection was illegal due to lack of due process. On appeal, the CA reversed the trial court’s decision and dismissed the complaint. CA likewise upheld respondent’s counterclaim for the billing differential representing the value of petitioners’ used but unregistered electrical consumption, which had been established without being controverted. Petitioner elevated the case before the SC by way of petition for review on certiorari. In their memorandum, petitioner assailed ruling upholding the validity of the disconnection and denying their claim for damages. The petitioner did not questioned the computation of the differential billing both during the trial as well as in their memorandum submitted before the SC. The only defense presented by petitioner is that they cannot be held liable thereof because the bills are already outstanding when they transferred to their residence. ISSUE: Whether or not a party may be held liable for unpaid bills based on the uncontroverted documentary and testimonial evidence.

Answer 1

HELD: Yes. The mere presentation by petitioners of a 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 had not been actually residing in the house before the date of the said document. Lorna Quisumbing 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. 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 P193,332.96 that petitioners owed respondent. The procedure through which this amount was arrived at was testified to by Meralco’s Senior Billing Computer Officer. 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.