G.R. No. 95296 February 3, 1993
INOCENCIA CENIZA, GOERING GEORGE C. PADERANGA, SYLVIA PADERANGA, JEORGE PADERANGA, JR., BRENDA LEE C. PADERANGA and CYNTHIA PADERANGA, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Inocencia Ceniza is the owner of a house in Cebu City and has been a customer of respondent Visayan Electric Company (VECO). The house was occupied by her children and grandchildren. Petitioners-spouses Goering George and Sylvia Paderanga were paying the electric bills. A dispute arose when electric consumption bills showed an abrupt rise starting November-December 1983 compared to previous periods. Atty. Sylvia Paderanga filed a written complaint with VECO on January 3, 1984, questioning the meter reading and withholding payment. After an inspection, a VECO supervisor concluded there was nothing wrong with the meter reading. Petitioners agreed to observe the billing for one month. Subsequent bills continued to show high consumption rates, despite periods when the house was less occupied (e.g., family vacations in Manila and Ozamis City). VECO served a 48-hour disconnection notice on May 15, 1984. Atty. Goering George Paderanga sent a letter requesting an adjustment of bills to reflect average previous consumption. On June 4, 1984, a VECO technician inspected the meter, found it was “backward creeping” (a defect unfavorable to VECO as it under-registers consumption), and replaced it. VECO informed Ceniza that the account would be charged “as is.” Testing confirmed the meter was backward creeping within tolerable limits but was old and unsuitable, and it was junked. Petitioners, through Atty. Paderanga, continued to request adjusted billings based on average consumption and tendered payment based on an average rate. VECO rejected the request. A second 48-hour disconnection notice was served on June 22, 1984, and service was disconnected on June 28, 1984. Petitioners filed a petition for injunction with damages and a preliminary mandatory injunction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which ordered reconnection. The RTC later ruled in favor of petitioners, awarding moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision regarding the award of damages and attorney’s fees. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees to the petitioners.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the disconnection of electric service by VECO was valid and done in good faith. VECO complied with the requisite 48-hour notice before disconnection. The meter was found to be defective, but the defect (backward creeping) was unfavorable to VECO and favorable to the customer, meaning the registered consumption was less than actual. Thus, VECO acted within its rights in demanding payment based on the billed consumption and disconnecting service for non-payment of the conceded amount due. The Court found no proof of malice or bad faith on the part of VECO. The claim for damages must be premised on a wrongful act or omission; since VECO’s disconnection was lawful, no damages could be awarded. The Court distinguished the cited case of Meralco v. Court of Appeals, where damages were awarded due to a tortious act (disconnection without notice), a fact not present here. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners’ appeal to the Court of Appeals was initially dismissed for failure to file the appellant’s brief on time, and the decision had become final and executory before it was reinstated; thus, the issue of damages could no longer be reviewed. The disconnection was proper due to the absence of a valid tender of payment for the amount conceded to be due.