Republic of the Philippines

Commission of Higher Education

G.R. No. 142943

Submitted To:
Engr. Enalyn Domingo

Submitted By: (Group 5)

May 21, 2021

The article that we have read was all about a case between the Petitioner (Antonio and

Lorna Quisumbing) and the Respondents (MERALCO). The Respondent (MERALCO) is

authorized by law to charge all of us for our electric consumption. On the other hand, Petitioners

(Mr. and Mrs. Quisumbing) are business entrepreneurs and also the house owners located at no.

94, Greenmeadows Avenue in Quezon City.

Around 9:00 am on March 3, 1995, MERALCO’s inspectors who leads by Emmanuel C.

Orlino were assigned to conduct a surprise inspection of all single-phase meters at

Greenmeadows Avenue. There inspection brought them to Petitioners residence. They ask

permission from the Petitioner’s Secretary who was in the house at that time before doing the

inspection and the secretary witnessed the whole operation. After the operation, MERALCO’s

inspector discovered a problem to Petitioners meter and immediately informed the secretary in

that discovery. Mrs. Quisumbing (Petitioner) was denying the allegation to the problem and she

was very upset after her secretary informed her about the problem. The Respondent

(MERALCO) informed the Petitioner that they have to get the meter for laboratory testing and

they had to immediately disconnect its electric service to the Petitioner (Antonio and Lorna

Quisumbing) because they found out that the meter was tampered, which means the meter was

set to limit how much electricity to consume.

clarify them about the violation and their electric service will be cut unless the unpaid electric

bill of 178,875.01 will be given because of consuming electricity illegally. The inspector also

justified that they are just following their protocols. However, after only how many hours on the

same day head inspector Orlino was instructed by MERALCO’s officer to reconnect its electric

service to Petitioners residence.

Three days after the inspection, Petitioner filed a complaint because of the damages it

caused for electric supply disconnection. Also, a complaint to the inspectors having no due

process while conducting the inspection.

Respondent reply to the Petitioners complaint saying that they concede the supply

disconnection but they deny the use of R.A 7832 known as the “Anti-Electricity and Electric

Transmission Lines/Materials Pilferage Act of 1994” against them.

The ruling of the lower court was in favor of the Petitioner because of Respondent’s

violation having no due process with regards to the rights of the Petitioner to defend themselves

for meter tampering and violation for immediate disconnection of power supply. However, the

Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint of the Petitioner because MERALCO’s representative

inspector only disconnects the power supply after discovering the said violation in meter

tampering. Also, there is no clear list of the damages occur after the said disconnection. At this

time the Court of Appeals was in favor of the Respondents (MERALCO).

issues for consideration which Court of Appeals will address. First is whether MERALCO’s

inspector considered the law (specifically R.A 7832) in disconnecting the supply of the

Petitioner. Second is the disconnection that occur may produce damages and third is whether the

Petitioner are responsible for the said unpaid billings that Respondents (MERALCO) already

computed. These three issues against Respondents was considered credible by the court.

For the first issue, Petitioners (Mr. and Mrs. Quisumbing) strongly believe that

Respondent (MERALCO inspectors) did not comply to the provision of R.A 7832. Section 4 of

R.A 7832 states that the immediate disconnection of electric supply can be done if the discovery

of illegal use of electricity is made by the person, however, there should be an officer in charge,

for instance, representative of ERB to witness the operation. Hence, Respondent tries to deny the

allegation for not considering or following the said provision. They add to there argument that

the Petitioner don’t have enough evidence for their allegation.

In the court, a review of evidences was made and Atty. Reyes (Petitioner Atty.) asked

Respondent Head of Inspectors, Emmanuel Orlino some questions to enlightened everyone who

was the present during the inspection and it turned out that only Mr. Orlino, the other 3

inspectors and the Petitioner’s secretary are present during the time of meter tampering

discovery.
 Another argument raised again in the court between the Petitioner’s Atty. And the

Respondents (MERALCO’s Inspector) with regards to the discovery of meter tampering and the

immediate disconnection of power supply. Base from their conversation, after the disconnection,

the Respondents referred the problem to Mr. Catalino Macaraeg (Respondent Supervisor)

through telephone calls. The argument ended up with Respondent denying again the use of R.A

7832 against them. However, the Court of Appeals decision was in favor of the Petitioner

because Respondent violates the due process in accordance with the law.

The second issue that arises is in terms of the damages it caused after the immediate

disconnection. Petitioner (Lorna Quisumbing) give a statement that they have a scheduled dinner

in their residence after a furniture exhibit that she attended. Because of the disconnection, she do

not have a choice but to change the venue and it is a hassle. She also cancelled the catering

service that worth approximately P 50,000.00. However, Court of Appeals denied the complaint

about the actual damages because of the lack of evidence to prove her statement. Instead moral

damages and exemplary damages was granted to the Petitioner (Mrs. Lorna Quisumbing) for

experiencing stress and anxiety because of immediate disconnection without giving a notice and

for the malicious action of the Respondent Inspector without considering the law. Also, the

Petitioner Attorneys fee was granted with the cost of the Respondent.
 The final issue was the unpaid billings of the Petitioner for alleged meter tampering.

Respondents (MERALCO) presents an evidence that shows the billing history and on how they

come up to the value of P 193,332.96 for the unpaid bills of the Petitioner. Petitioners (Antonio

and Lorna Quisumbing) said that they are not liable for the said differential billing and their

names were not registered for electric service because they are not the original occupants of the

house. The decision of the Court of Appeals was in favor of the Respondent (MERALCO) and

they are requiring the Petitioner side to pay the unpaid bills because they provide lack of

evidence to show or prove that they are not liable for the said violation.

The petition was PARTLY GRANTED and the court of appeals came up to a decision

that Respondents (MERALCO) should pay a P 100,000.00, P 50,000.00, and P 50,000.00 for

moral damages, exemplary damages, and Attorney’s fee respectively. A total of P 200,000.00 for

the cost of the Respondent (MERALCO). Hence, Petitioners (Antonio and Lorna Quisumbing)

are required to pay an amount of P 193,332.96 for the unpaid bills.

Section 4 (viii) of R.A. 7832 (Anti-Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines / Materials

Pilferage Act of 1994, ‘’ Prima Facie Evidence.’’). Immediate disconnection of electric supply can

be done if the discovery of illegal use of electricity is made by the person, however, there should

be an officer in charge, for instance, representative of ERB to witness the operation. The

company/respondent violates this constitution by disconnected the electric supply of the

petitioner without any representative or an officer in charge to certify the disconnection. Before

disconnecting an electric supply, the team that will disconnect must bring an officer in charge or

a representative of ERB to witness the operation.

Section 4 (1) of R.A. 7832 (Anti-Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines / Materials

Pilferage Act of 1994, ‘’ Prima Facie Evidence.’’). Immediate disconnection of electric supply to

such person after due notice. The respondent violates this constitution by immediately

disconnecting its electric service to the petitioner without any due notice. Before cutting an

electric service to customer, the company must provide a due notice and an allotted time for the

customer.

Section 1 & 2. Article 1, Code of Ethics (Professional Life). An Electrical Engineer should

always perform his duties with fairness and impartiality to all his clients. An Electrical Engineer

should uphold his honor and dignity of being a professional by being fair and impartial to his

clients. The electrical professional who conducted the operation disobey this code of ethics that
refers fairness and impartiality to his client by disregarding the law by means of disconnecting

the electrical supply to the petitioner without providing a due notice.

Section 1. Article 2, Code of Ethics (Relations with Client and Employer). An Electrical

Engineer should be equitable and reasonable in every action to be taken as a professional in

service to his clients regarding to the contract and the agreements. The electrical professional

who conducted the operation disobey this code of ethics that refers fairness and impartiality to

his client by giving no chance to the petitioner to defend their side about the said violation

(Meter Tampering).

Section 2 (c). Chapter I of R.A. 9163 (An Act Ordaining Reforms in the Electric Power

Industry, Amending for the Purpose Certain Laws and for other Purposes, “Declaration of

Policy”). There should be an equal treatment for public and private sectors with regards to the

process of restructuring the electric power industry. This act supports the provision of the codes

of ethics that refers to the fairness and impartiality of the Electrical Engineer to his clients.

Section 3. Article 3, Code of Ethics (Relations with fellow Engineers). An Electrical Engineer

should perform the given set standard of professional electrical engineer. The respondent act

unprofessionally and disregard the given set standard with accordance to the law by

disconnecting the electrical supply without any officer in charge or representative of ERB.
Article 2219 of the Civil Code. Moral Damages. Because of the malicious action of the

respondent (Meralco Inspector) by immediately disconnect its electric service, the petitioner

experienced a moral damage (Stress, Anxiety, etc.).

Article 2222 of the Civil Code. Nominal Damages. By immediately disconnecting the electrical

supply of petitioner, the respondent already has done a nominal damage on the rights of the

petitioner. Even so the supreme court denied the petition about the actual damages against the

respondent, the supreme court, however, approved it as a nominal damage that’s why the

respondent compensate the petitioner for his damages.

Section 1. Article 4, Code of Ethics (Penal Provisions). Violation of any provision of this Code

shall constitute unethical, unprofessional, and dishonorable conduct and the violator shall be

subjected to disciplinary action by the Board of Electrical Engineering. In every violation they

have done there will always be a corresponding consequence and shall be held accountable by

the Board of Electrical Engineering.