G.R. No. 142943 . April 3, 2002.
Spouses ANTONIO and LORNA QUISUMBING, petitioners, vs. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Spouses Antonio and Lorna Quisumbing are the owners of a house and lot in Quezon City. On March 3, 1995, respondent MERALCO’s inspectors conducted a routine inspection of the electric meter at the petitioners’ residence after obtaining permission from their secretary, who witnessed the inspection. The inspectors discovered that the terminal seal was missing, the meter cover seal was deformed, the meter dials were misaligned, and there were scratches on the meter base plate. The meter was detached and brought to MERALCO’s laboratory for testing, which confirmed tampering. MERALCO’s head inspector informed the petitioners that unless they paid a differential billing of ₱178,875.01, their electric supply would be disconnected. The disconnection was effected but was reconnected later the same day upon instruction from a MERALCO officer. Despite the reconnection, petitioners filed a complaint for damages with a prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, alleging that the disconnection was done without due process. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, dismissed the complaint, and ordered the petitioners to pay MERALCO a differential billing of ₱193,332.00.

ISSUE

Whether MERALCO validly disconnected the electrical service of the petitioners by complying with the requisites of Republic Act No. 7832 (Anti-Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines/Materials Pilferage Act of 1994), particularly the requirement that the discovery of tampering must be personally witnessed and attested to by an officer of the law or a duly authorized representative of the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB).

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the disconnection was not validly effected. Under Section 4(a)(viii) of R.A. No. 7832 , the discovery of circumstances constituting prima facie evidence of illegal use of electricity, in order to authorize immediate disconnection, must be personally witnessed and attested to by an officer of the law or a duly authorized representative of the ERB. The evidence on record, including the testimony of MERALCO’s own witness, established that only the petitioners’ secretary was present during the inspection; no law officer or ERB representative was present. Therefore, the prima facie presumption of tampering did not arise, and the immediate disconnection was not authorized by law. The Court affirmed the CA’s award of the differential billing, as petitioners’ liability for the unregistered consumption was established. However, the Court found MERALCO liable for nominal damages for the violation of the petitioners’ right to due process and awarded them ₱25,000.00. Attorney’s fees were also awarded to the petitioners.