GR 171534; (June, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171534 ; June 30, 2008
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, petitioner, vs. WILCON BUILDERS SUPPLY, INC., respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Manila Electric Company (Meralco) filed a complaint for damages against respondent Wilcon Builders Supply, Inc., a registered customer. Meralco alleged that during a routine inspection in 1991, Wilcon’s electric meter was found to be tampered with, as terminal seals were missing, lead cover seals were cut, and dial pointers were misaligned with scratches. Meralco demanded payment for unregistered consumption amounting to P250,565.59. Wilcon denied tampering, attributing the historical fluctuation in its electricity consumption to the installation and subsequent breakdown of a 7.5-ton air-conditioning unit, which led to reduced usage.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Meralco, applying the disputable presumption that the customer in whose premises a tampered meter is found is responsible for the tampering. It ordered Wilcon to pay reduced actual damages and attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC. The CA found Wilcon’s explanation for the consumption decrease credible and applied the doctrine from Ridjo Tape & Chemical Corp. v. CA, citing Meralco’s negligence for failing to discover the alleged tampering during its regular inspections over several years.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the Ridjo Tape doctrine to absolve Wilcon from liability for the alleged meter tampering and the corresponding differential billing.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied Meralco’s petition and affirmed the CA Decision. The legal logic centers on the burden of proof and the application of the Ridjo Tape doctrine, which imposes a duty of diligence on public utilities in conducting regular meter inspections. The Court clarified that this doctrine applies not only to cases of defective meters but also to allegations of tampering. Meralco failed to conclusively prove that Wilcon was responsible for the tampering. The presumption that the customer committed the tampering is disputable and was successfully overturned by Wilcon’s plausible explanation regarding its non-operational air-conditioning unit.
Crucially, the Court emphasized Meralco’s negligence. As a public utility, it has a statutory duty to make periodic inspections to prevent loss of revenue. Its failure to detect any anomaly from 1984 to 1991—a period of seven years—constituted a breach of this duty. This negligence directly contributed to the loss it sought to recover. Therefore, Meralco could not demand payment for unbilled consumption arising from its own lack of diligence. The findings of the CA, being supported by evidence, were sustained.