G.R. No. 160689 , March 26, 2014
RAUL H. SESBREÑO, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JUAN I. COROMINA (SUBSTITUTED BY ANITA COROMINA, ELIZABETH COROMINA and ROSIEMARIE COROMINA), VICENTE E. GARCIA (SUBSTITUTED BY EDGAR JOHN GARCIA), FELIPE CONSTANTINO, RONALD ARCILLA, NORBERTO ABELLANA, DEMETRIO BALICHA, ANGELITA LHUILLIER, JOSE E. GARCIA, AND VISA YAN ELECTRIC COMPANY (VECO), Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Raul H. Sesbreño was a customer of respondent Visayan Electric Company (VECO) under a metered service contract. On May 11, 1989, a VECO Violation of Contract (VOC) inspection team, accompanied by a PC escort (Sgt. Demetrio Balicha), conducted a routine inspection of houses in La Paloma Village, Cebu City, including Sesbreño’s residence. The team found Sesbreño’s electric meter turned upside down, which could prevent accurate registration of electricity consumption. They detached and replaced the meter, and with permission from a visitor, Chuchie Garcia, entered the house to conduct a load survey. Sesbreño alleged that the team forcibly entered his premises without his consent or a search warrant, turned the meter upside down to incriminate him, coerced Chuchie Garcia into signing documents, and stole personal items. He filed a complaint for damages based on abuse of rights. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, finding the testimonies of Sesbreño’s witnesses inconsistent and not credible, while crediting the respondents’ evidence that the inspection was routine and the meter was found tampered. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, noting the lack of evidence of malicious intent by the VOC team and the implausibility of Sesbreño’s claims.

ISSUE

Whether Sesbreño is entitled to recover damages for abuse of rights arising from the inspection conducted by the VECO VOC team.

RULING

No, Sesbreño is not entitled to damages. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s decision. The Court held that the inspection of the electric meter in the garage was permissible under the terms of the metered service contract, which allowed VECO to enter the premises for meter-related purposes. The entry into the main house for the load survey was with the consent of Chuchie Garcia, who was present and acted as a representative. The Court found no evidence of abuse of rights, malice, or bad faith by the respondents. The factual findings of the lower courts, which deemed Sesbreño’s witnesses unreliable and the inspection routine and lawful, were upheld. The claim for damages under Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code was not supported, as the respondents acted within their rights and without intent to injure.