G.R. No. 195145. February 10, 2016. Manila Electric Company, Petitioner, vs. Spouses SULPICIO and PATRICIA RAMOS, Respondents

2/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 783
G.R. No. 195145. February 10, 2016.*

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES
SULPICIO and PATRICIA RAMOS, respondents.
Electric Power Industry; Electricity Pilferage; Anti-Electricity

and Electric Transmission Lines/Materials Pilferage Act of 1994;
Republic Act (RA) No. 7832 was enacted by Congress to afford
electric service providers multiple remedies to protect themselves
from electricity pilferage. These remedies include the immediate
disconnection of the electric service of an erring customer, criminal
prosecution, and the imposition of surcharges.—The State also
recognizes that electricity is the property of the service provider.
R.A. 7832 was enacted by Congress to afford electric service
providers multiple remedies to protect themselves from electricity
pilferage. These remedies include the immediate disconnection
of the electric service of an erring customer, criminal
prosecution, and the imposition of surcharges. However, the
service provider must avail of any or all of
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.

598
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Manila Electric Company vs. Ramos
these remedies within legal bounds, in strict compliance with

the requirements and/or conditions set forth by law. Section 4(a)
of R.A. 7832 provides that the discovery of an outside connection
attached on the electric meter shall constitute as prima facie
evidence of illegal use of electricity by the person who benefits
from the illegal use if the discovery is personally witnessed
and attested to by an officer of the law or a duly
authorized representative of the Energy Regulatory Board
(ERB). With the presence of such prima facie evidence, the
electric service provider is within its rights to immediately
disconnect the electric service of the consumer after due notice.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177c4bce154dc0a15a9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/18
Same; Same; Same; Republic Act (RA) No. 7832 has two (2)
requisites for an electric service provider to be authorized to
disconnect its customer’s electric service on the basis of alleged
electricity pilferage: first, an officer of the law or an authorized
Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) representative must be present
during the inspection of the electric facilities; and second, even if
there is prima facie evidence of illegal use of electricity and the
customer is caught in flagrante delicto committing the acts under
Section 4(a), the customer must still be given due notice prior to
the disconnection.—R.A. 7832 has two requisites for an electric
service provider to be authorized to disconnect its customer’s
electric service on the basis of alleged electricity pilferage: first,
an officer of the law or an authorized ERB representative must be
present during the inspection of the electric facilities; and second,
even if there is prima facie evidence of illegal use of electricity
and the customer is caught in flagrante delicto committing the
acts under Section 4(a), the customer must still be given due
notice prior to the disconnection.
Same; Same; Same; Differential Billings; Words and Phrases;
Section 6 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7832 defines differential billing
as “the amount to be charged to the person concerned for the
unbilled electricity illegally consumed by him.”—Section 6 of R.A.
7832 defines differential billing as “the amount to be charged to
the person concerned for the unbilled electricity illegally consumed
by him.” Clearly, the law provides that the person who actually
consumed the electricity illegally shall be liable for the differential
billing. It does not ipso facto make liable for payment of the
differential billing the registered customer whose electrical
facilities had been tampered with and utilized for the illegal use
of electricity.

599
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 599

Same; Same; Same; Public Utilities; System Losses; While the

Supreme Court (SC) recognizes the right of Manila Electric
Company (MERALCO) as a public utility to collect system losses,
the courts cannot and will not blindly grant a public utility’s claim
for differential billing if there is no sufficient evidence to prove
entitlement.—While this Court recognizes the right of MERALCO
as a public utility to collect system losses, the courts cannot and
will not blindly grant a public utility’s claim for differential billing
if there is no sufficient evidence to prove entitlement. As
MERALCO failed to sufficiently prove its claim for
payment of the differential billing, we rule that the

respondents cannot be held liable for the billed amount.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Disconnection of Electric Service;
Damages; With Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) in bad
faith for its failure to follow the strict requirements under Republic
Act (RA) No. 7832 in the disconnection of the respondents’ electric
service, the Supreme Court (SC) agrees with the Court of Appeals
(CA) that the award of damages is in order.—With MERALCO in
bad faith for its failure to follow the strict requirements under
R.A. 7832 in the disconnection of the respondents’ electric service,
we agree with the CA that the award of damages is in order.
However, we deem it proper to modify the award in accordance
with prevailing jurisprudence.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Moral Damages;
Aside from having to spend eight (8) months in the dark at their
own residence, Patricia testified that they suffered extreme social
humiliation, embarrassment, and serious anxiety as they were
subjected to gossip in their neighborhood of stealing electricity
through the use of an illegal connection.—After due consideration
of the manner of disconnection of the respondents’ electric service
and the length of time that the respondents had to endure
without electricity, we find the award of moral damages proper.
Aside from having to spend eight (8) months in the dark at their
own residence, Patricia testified that they suffered extreme social
humiliation, embarrassment, and serious anxiety as they were
subjected to gossip in their neighborhood of stealing electricity
through the use of an illegal connection. The damage to the
respondents’ reputation and social standing was aggravated by
their decision to move to a new residence following the absolute
refusal of MERALCO to restore their electric services.

600

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Exemplary Damages;

In numerous cases, the Supreme Court (SC) found that Manila
Electric Company (MERALCO) failed to comply with the
requirements under Republic Act (RA) No. 7832 before a
disconnection of a customer’s electric service could be effected. In
these cases, we aptly awarded exemplary damages against
MERALCO to serve as a warning against repeating the same
actions.—Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by way of
example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral,
temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages. The award of
exemplary damages is allowed by law as a warning to the public
and as a deterrent against the repetition of socially deleterious

actions. In numerous cases, this Court found that MERALCO
failed to comply with the requirements under R.A. 7832 before a
disconnection of a customer’s electric service could be effected. In
these cases, we aptly awarded exemplary damages against
MERALCO to serve as a warning against repeating the same
actions. In this case, MERALCO totally failed to comply with the
two requirements under R.A. 7832 before disconnecting the
respondents’ electric service. While MERALCO insists that R.A.
7832 gives it the right to disconnect the respondents’ electric
service, nothing in the records indicates that it attempted to
comply with the statutory requirements before effecting the
disconnection.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Elias Santos for petitioner.
YF Lim & Associates for respondents.
BRION, J.:

We resolve the petition for review on certiorari1
assailing the July 30, 2010 decision2 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 87843 entitled “Spouses
Sulpicio and Patricia
_______________
1 Petition for Review on Certiorari, Rollo, pp. 8-29.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez and concurred in by
Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Manuel M. Barrios, id., at
pp. 36-50.

601
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 601

Ramos v. Manila Electric Company,” that affirmed the

Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) August 22, 2006 decision3 in
Civil Case No. 99-95975.
The August 22, 2006 RTC decision ordered the Manila
Electric Company (MERALCO) to restore the electric
power connection of Spouses Sulpicio and Patricia Ramos
(respondents) and awarded them P2,000,000.00, with legal
interest, in total damages.

The Factual Antecedents

MERALCO is a private corporation engaged in the
business of selling and distributing electricity to its
customers in Metro Manila and other franchise areas. The
respondents are registered customers of MERALCO under
Service Identification Number (SIN) 409076401.
MERALCO entered into a contract of service with the
respondents agreeing to supply the latter with electric
power in their residence at 2760-B Molave St., Manuguit,
Tondo, Manila. To measure the respondents’ electric
consumption, it installed the electric meter with serial
number 330ZN43953 outside the front wall of the property
occupied by Patricia’s brother, Isidoro Sales, and his wife,
Nieves Sales (Nieves), located beside the respondents’
house.
On November 5, 1999, MERALCO’s service inspector
inspected the respondents’ electrical facilities and found an
outside connection attached to their electric meter. The
service inspector traced the connection, an illegal one, to
the residence and appliances of Nieves. Nieves was the
only one present during the inspection and she was the one
who signed the Metering Facilities Inspection Report.
Due to the discovery of the illegal connection, the service
inspector disconnected the respondents’ electric services on
_______________
3 Penned by Presiding Judge Placido C. Marquez, id., at pp. 123-144.

602

the same day. The inspection and disconnection were

done without the knowledge of the respondents as they
were not at home and their house was closed at the time.
The respondents denied that they had been using an
illegal electrical connection and they requested MERALCO
to immediately reconnect their electric services. Despite
the respondents’ request, MERALCO instead demanded
from them the payment of P179,231.70 as differential
billing.
On December 20, 1999, the respondents filed a
complaint for breach of contract with preliminary
mandatory injunction and damages against
MERALCO before the RTC, Branch 40, City of Manila.
They prayed for the immediate reconnection of their
electric service and the award of actual, moral, and

exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation
expenses.
In a decision dated August 22, 2006, the RTC ordered
MERALCO to reconnect the respondents’ electric service
and awarded damages as follows:

WHEREFORE, Judgment is rendered directing
defendant MERALCO to permanently reconnect
immediately the plaintiff’s electric services, and for
said defendant to pay the following:
1. P100,000.00 as actual or compensatory
damages;
2. P1,500,000.00 as moral damages;
3. P300,000.00 as exemplary damages;
4. P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and
5. Costs of suit;
with legal interest on the total damages of
P2,000,000.00 from the date of this Judgment until
fully paid.
SO ORDERED.4

MERALCO appealed the RTC’s decision to the CA.
_______________
4 Id., at p. 144.

603
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 603

In its assailed July 30, 2010 decision,5 the CA denied the

appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the RTC’s order of
reconnection and award for payment of damages. The
appellate court held that MERALCO failed to comply not
only with its own contract of service, but also with the
requirements under Sections 4 and 6 of Republic Act No.
7832, or the Anti-Electricity and Electric Transmission
Lines/Materials Pilferage Act of 1994 (R.A. 7832), when it
resorted to the immediate disconnection of the respondents’
electric service without due notice. It also ruled that the
respondents were not liable for the differential billing as it
had not been established that they knew or consented to
the illegal connection or even benefited from it.
MERALCO moved for the reconsideration of the
decision, but the CA denied its motion in a resolution6
dated January 3, 2011. The present petition for review on

certiorari7 was filed with this Court on March 4, 2011, as a
consequence.

The Petition

MERALCO argues that under R.A. 7832, it had the right
and authority to immediately disconnect the electric service
of the respondents after they were caught in flagrante
delicto using a tampered electrical installation.
MERALCO also claims that by virtue of their contract of
service, the respondents are liable to pay the differential
billing regardless of whether the latter benefited from the
illegal electric service or not. It adds that this is true even
if the respondents did not personally tamper with the
electrical facilities.
Finally, MERALCO contends that there is no basis for
the award of damages as the disconnection of the
respondents’
_______________
5 Id., at pp. 36-50.

6 Id., at pp. 63-66.
7 Id., at p. 8-29.

604

electric service was done in good faith and in the lawful

exercise of its rights as a public utility company.

The Respondents’ Comment

8
In their comment of June 29, 2011, the respondents
pray for the denial of the present petition for lack of merit.
They argue that the discovery of an outside connection
attached to their electric meter does not give MERALCO
the right to automatically disconnect their electric service
as the law provides certain mandatory requirements that
should be observed before a disconnection could be effected.
They claim that MERALCO failed to comply with these
statutory requirements.
Also, the respondents contend that MERALCO breached
its contractual obligations when its service inspector
immediately disconnected their electric service without
notice. They claim that this breach of contract, coupled

with MERALCO’s failure to observe the requirements
under R.A. 7832, entitled them to damages which were
sufficiently established with evidence and were rightfully
awarded by the RTC and affirmed by the CA.
Lastly, the respondents argue that they are not liable to
MERALCO for the differential billing as they were not the
ones who illegally consumed the unbilled electricity
through the illegal connection.

The Court’s Ruling

We DENY the petition for review on certiorari as
we find no reversible error committed by the CA in
issuing its assailed decision.
The core issue in this case is whether MERALCO had
the right to immediately disconnect the electric service of
the
_______________
8 Id., at pp. 223-240.

605
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 605

respondents upon discovery of an outside connection

attached to their electric meter.
The distribution of electricity is a basic necessity that is
imbued with public interest. Its provider is considered as a
public utility subject to the strict regulation by the State in
the exercise of its police power. Failure to comply with
these regulations gives rise to the presumption of
bad faith or abuse of right.9
Nevertheless, the State also recognizes that electricity is
the property of the service provider. R.A. 7832 was enacted
by Congress to afford electric service providers multiple
remedies to protect themselves from electricity pilferage.
These remedies include the immediate disconnection of
the electric service of an erring customer, criminal
prosecution, and the imposition of surcharges.10 However,
the service provider must avail of any or all of these
remedies within legal bounds, in strict compliance with the
requirements and/or conditions set forth by law.
Section 4(a) of R.A. 7832 provides that the discovery of
an outside connection attached on the electric meter shall
constitute as prima facie evidence of illegal use of

electricity by the person who benefits from the illegal use if
the discovery is personally witnessed and attested to
by an officer of the law or a duly authorized
representative of the Energy Regulatory Board
(ERB). With the presence of such prima facie evidence, the
electric service provider is within its rights to immediately
disconnect the electric service of the consumer after due
notice.
This Court has repeatedly stressed the significance of
the presence of an authorized government representative
during an inspection of electric facilities, viz.:
_______________
9 Samar II Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Quijano, G.R. No. 144474,

April 27, 2007, 522 SCRA 364, 375-376.
10 Id., at pp. 376-377.

606

The presence of government agents who may

authorize immediate disconnections go into the
essence of due process. Indeed, we cannot allow
respondent to act virtually as prosecutor and
judge in imposing the penalty of disconnection
due to alleged meter tampering. That would not
sit well in a democratic country. After all, Meralco is a
monopoly that derives its power from the government.
Clothing it with unilateral authority to disconnect
would be equivalent to giving it a license to tyrannize
its hapless customers.11 (emphasis supplied)

Additionally, Section 6 of R.A. 7832 affords a private
electric utility the right and authority to immediately
disconnect the electric service of a consumer who has been
caught in flagrante delicto doing any of the acts covered by
Section 4(a). However, the law clearly states that the
disconnection may only be done after serving a written
notice or warning to the consumer.
To reiterate, R.A. 7832 has two requisites for an electric
service provider to be authorized to disconnect its
customer’s electric service on the basis of alleged electricity
pilferage: first, an officer of the law or an authorized ERB
representative must be present during the inspection of the
electric facilities; and second, even if there is prima facie

evidence of illegal use of electricity and the customer is
caught in flagrante delicto committing the acts under
Section 4(a), the customer must still be given due notice
prior to the disconnection.12
In its defense, MERALCO insists that it observed due
process when its service inspector disconnected the
respondents’ electric service, viz.:
_______________
11 Quisumbing v. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 142943, April 3,

2002, 380 SCRA 195, 208.
12 Manila Electric Company v. Navarro-Domingo, G.R. No. 161893,
June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA 363, 371.

607
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 607

Under the present situation, there is no doubt that

due process, as required by R.A. 7832, was observed
[when] the petitioner discontinued the electric supply
of respondent: there was an inspection conducted in
the premises of respondent with the consent of their
authorized representative; it was discovered during
the said inspection that private respondents were
using outside connection; the nature of the violation
was explained to private respondents’ representative;
the inspection and discovery was personally
witnessed and attested to by private respondents’
representative; private respondents failed and
refused to pay the differential billing
amounting to P179,231.70 before their electric
service was disconnected.13 (Emphasis supplied)

After a thorough examination of the records of the case,
we find no proof that MERALCO complied with these two
requirements under R.A. 7832. MERALCO never even
alleged in its submissions that an ERB representative or
an officer of the law was present during the inspection of
the respondents’ electric meter. Also, it did not claim that
the respondents were ever notified beforehand of the
impending disconnection of their electric service.
In view of MERALCO’s failure to comply with the strict
requirements under Sections 4 and 6 of R.A. No. 7832, we
hold that MERALCO had no authority to
immediately disconnect the respondents’ electric

service. As a result, the immediate disconnection of the
respondents’ electric service is presumed to be in bad
faith.
We point out, too, that MERALCO’s allegation that the
respondents refused to pay the differential billing before
the disconnection of their electric service is an obvious
falsity. MERALCO never disputed the fact that the
respondents’ electric service was disconnected on
November 5, 1999 — the same day as when the electric
meter was inspected. Also,
_______________
13 See Petition for Review on Certiorari, Rollo, p. 22.

608

MERALCO’s demand letter for payment of the

differential billing is dated December 4, 1999. Thus, there
is no truth to the statement that the respondents first
failed to pay the differential billing and only then was their
electric service disconnected.
The disconnection of respondents’

electric service is not supported
by MERALCO’s own Terms and
Conditions of Service

In addition, we observe that MERALCO also failed to
follow its own procedure for the discontinuance of service
under its contract of service with the respondents. We
quote in this regard the relevant terms of service:
DISCONTINUANCE OF SERVICE:

The Company reserves the right to discontinue
service in case the customer is in arrears in the
payment of bills in those cases where the meter
stopped or failed to register the correct amount of
energy consumed, or failure to comply with any of
these terms and conditions or in case of or to prevent
fraud upon the Company. Before disconnection is
made in case of or to prevent fraud, the
Company may adjust the bill of said customer
accordingly and if the adjusted bill is not paid,

the Company may disconnect the same. In case of
disconnection, the provisions of Revised Order No. 1
of the former Public Service Commission (now ERC)
shall be observed. Any such suspension of service
shall not terminate the contract between the
Company and the customer.14 (Emphasis supplied)

There is nothing in its contract of service that gives
MERALCO the authority to immediately disconnect a
customer’s electric connection. MERALCO’s contractual
right to discon-
_______________
14 Id., at p. 16.

609
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 609

nect electric service arises only after the customer has

been notified of his adjusted bill and has been afforded the
opportunity to pay the differential billing.
In this case, the disconnection of the respondents’
electric service happened on November 5, 1999, while the
demand for the payment of differential billing was made
through a letter dated December 4, 1999. Thus, we hold
that MERALCO breached its contract of service with
the respondents as it disconnected the latter’s
electric service before they were ever notified of the
differential billing.
Differential billing

Section 6 of R.A. 7832 defines differential billing as “the
amount to be charged to the person concerned for the
unbilled electricity illegally consumed by him.” Clearly, the
law provides that the person who actually consumed the
electricity illegally shall be liable for the differential billing.
It does not ipso facto make liable for payment of the
differential billing the registered customer whose electrical
facilities had been tampered with and utilized for the
illegal use of electricity.
In this case, as the prima facie presumption afforded by
Section 4 of R.A. 7832 does not apply, it falls upon
MERALCO to first prove that the respondents had actually
installed the outside connection attached on their electric

meter and that they had benefited from the electricity
consumed through the outside connection before it could
hold them liable for the differential billing.
The records show that MERALCO presented no proof
that it ever caught the respondents, or anyone acting in the
respondents’ behalf, in the act of tampering with their
electric meter. As the CA correctly held, the respondents
could not have been caught in flagrante delicto committing
the tampering since they were not present during the
inspection of the

610

electric meter, nor were any of their representatives at

hand.15 Moreover, the presence of an outside connection
attached to the electric meter operates only as a prima
facie evidence of electricity pilferage under R.A. 7832; it is
not enough to declare the respondents in flagrante delicto
tampering with the electric meter.16 In fact, MERALCO
itself admitted in its submissions that Nieves was the
illegal user of the outside connection attached to the
respondents’ electric meter.17
On this point, MERALCO argues that Nieves was an
authorized representative of the respondents. However, the
records are bereft of any sufficient proof to support this
claim. The fact that she is an occupant of the premises
where the electric meter was installed does not make her
the respondents’ representative considering that the unit
occupied by the respondents is separate and distinct from
the one occupied by Nieves and her family. Similarly, the
fact that Nieves was able to show the respondents’ latest
electric bill does not make her the latter’s authorized
representative.
While this Court recognizes the right of MERALCO as a
public utility to collect system losses, the courts cannot and
will not blindly grant a public utility’s claim for differential
billing if there is no sufficient evidence to prove
entitlement.18 As MERALCO failed to sufficiently
prove its claim for payment of the differential
billing, we rule that the respondents cannot be held
liable for the billed amount.
_______________
15 Go v. Leyte II Electric Cooperative, Inc., G.R. No. 176909, February

18, 2008, 546 SCRA 187, 195.
16 Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) v. Chua, G.R. No. 160422,
July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 81, 98.
17 See MERALCO’S Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, Rollo, p.
92.
18 Manila Electric Company v. Wilcon Builders Supply, Inc., G.R. No.
171534, June 30, 2008, 556 SCRA 742, 756-757.

611
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 611

On the issue of damages

With MERALCO in bad faith for its failure to follow the
strict requirements under R.A. 7832 in the disconnection of
the respondents’ electric service, we agree with the CA that
the award of damages is in order. However, we deem it
proper to modify the award in accordance with prevailing
jurisprudence.
First, actual damages pertain to such injuries or losses
that are actually sustained and are susceptible of
measurement. They are intended not to enrich the injured
party but to put him in the position in which he was in
before he was injured.19
In Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos,20 we
explained that in order to recover actual damages, there
must be pleading and proof of the damages suffered, viz.:

Actual damages, to be recoverable, must not only be
capable of proof, but must actually be proved with a
reasonable degree of certainty. Courts cannot simply
rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork in
determining the fact and amount of damages. To
justify an award of actual damages, there must
be competent proof of the actual amount of loss,
credence can be given only to claims which are
duly supported by receipts. (Emphasis supplied)

In this case, Patricia stated that her family’s food
expenses doubled after MERALCO disconnected their
electric services as they could no longer cook at home. We
note, however, that there is no sufficient proof presented to
show the actual food expenses that the respondents
incurred. Nevertheless, Patricia also testified that they
were forced to move to a new residence after living without
electricity for eight (8) months at their home in Tondo,

Manila. They proved this allegation through
_______________
19 Oceaneering Contractors (Phils.), Inc. v. Barretto, G.R. No. 184215,

February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA 596, 605-606.
20 G.R. No. 138296, November 22, 2000, 345 SCRA 509, 519.

612

the presentation of a contract of lease and receipts for

payment of monthly rentals for 42 months amounting to
P210,000.00. Thus, we find it proper to increase the
award of actual damages from P100,000.00 to
P210,000.00.
Second, moral damages are designed to compensate and
alleviate the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings,
moral shock, social humiliation, and similar harm unjustly
caused to a person.21 They may be properly awarded to
persons who have been unjustly deprived of property
without due process of law.22
In Regala v. Carin,23 we discussed the requisites for the
award of moral damages, viz.:

In fine, an award of moral damages calls for the
presentation of 1) evidence of besmirched reputation
or physical, mental or psychological suffering
sustained by the claimant; 2) a culpable act or
omission factually established; 3) proof that the
wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the
proximate cause of the damages sustained by the
claimant; and 4) the proof that the act is predicated
on any of the instances expressed or envisioned by
Article 2219 and Article 2220 of the Civil Code.

Applied to this case, after due consideration of the
manner of disconnection of the respondents’ electric service
and the length of time that the respondents had to endure
without electricity, we find the award of moral damages
proper. Aside from having to spend eight (8) months in the
dark at their own residence, Patricia testified that they
suffered extreme social humiliation, embarrassment, and
serious anxiety as they were subjected to gossip in their
neighborhood of stealing electricity through the use of an

illegal connection. The damage to the respondents’
reputation and social standing was
_______________
21 Regala v. Carin, G.R. No. 188715, April 6, 2011, 647 SCRA 419,
426.
22 Civil Code, Article 32.
23 Regala v. Carin, supra at pp. 427-428.

613
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 613

aggravated by their decision to move to a new residence

following the absolute refusal of MERALCO to restore their
electric services.
However, we find the award of P1,500,000.00 in moral
damages to be excessive. Moral damages are not intended
to enrich the complainant as a penalty for the defendant. It
is awarded as a means to ease the moral suffering the
complainant suffered due to the defendant’s culpable
action.24 While prevailing jurisprudence deems it
appropriate to award P100,000.00 in moral damages in
cases where MERALCO wrongfully disconnected electric
service,25 we hold that such amount is not commensurate
with the injury suffered by the respondents. Thus, in view
of the specific circumstances present in this case, we
reduce the award of moral damages from
P1,500,000.00 to P300,000.00.
Third, exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by
way of example or correction for the public good, in
addition to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory
damages. The award of exemplary damages is allowed by
law as a warning to the public and as a deterrent against
the repetition of socially deleterious actions.26
In numerous cases,27 this Court found that MERALCO
failed to comply with the requirements under R.A. 7832 be-
_______________
24 Manila Electric Company v. Jose, G.R. No. 152769, February 14,

2007, 515 SCRA 669, 680.
25 Supra note 17.
26 Tan v. OMC Carriers, Inc., G.R. No. 190521, January 12, 2011, 639
SCRA 471, 485.
27 Quisumbing v. Manila Electric Company, supra note 11; Manila

Electric Company (MERALCO) v. Vda. de Santiago, G.R. No. 170482,
September 4, 2009, 598 SCRA 315; Manila Electric Company (MERALCO)
v. Castillo, G.R. No. 182976, January 14, 2013, 688 SCRA 455; Manila
Electric Company (MERALCO) v. Chua, supra note 16; Manila Electric
Company v. Hsing Nan Tannery Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 178913, February
12, 2009, 578 SCRA 640; Manila Electric Company v. Navarro-Domingo,
supra note 12.

614

fore a disconnection of a customer’s electric service could

be effected. In these cases, we aptly awarded exemplary
damages against MERALCO to serve as a warning against
repeating the same actions.
In this case, MERALCO totally failed to comply with the
two requirements under R.A. 7832 before disconnecting the
respondents’ electric service. While MERALCO insists that
R.A. 7832 gives it the right to disconnect the respondents’
electric service, nothing in the records indicates that it
attempted to comply with the statutory requirements
before effecting the disconnection.
Under these circumstances, we find that the previous
awards against MERALCO have not served their purpose
as a means to prevent the repetition of the same damaging
actions that it has committed in the past. Therefore, we
increase the award of exemplary damages from
P300,000.00 to P500,000.00 in the hope that this will
persuade MERALCO to be more prudent and responsible in
its observance of the requirements under the law in
disconnecting a customer’s electrical supply.
Lastly, in view of the award of exemplary damages, we
find the award of attorney’s fees proper, in accordance with
Article 2208(1) of the Civil Code. We find the CA’s award
of attorney’s fees in the amount of P100,000.00 just
and reasonable under the circumstances.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision
dated July 30, 2010 and resolution dated January 3, 2011
of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 87843 are
AFFIRMED with the following modifications: MERALCO
is ordered to pay respondents Spouses Sulpicio and Patricia
Ramos P210,000.00 as actual damages, P300,000.00 as
moral damages, P500,000.00 as exemplary damages, and
P100,000.00 as attorneys fees. Costs against Manila
Electric Company.
SO ORDERED.

615
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 615

Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Mendoza and

Leonen, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed with

modifications.
Notes.—Even if there is prima facie evidence of illegal

use of electricity, Section 4, RA 7832 requires due notice to
the person benefited before disconnection of electricity can
be effected. Specifically, Section 6 of RA 7832 calls for prior
written notice or warning. (Manila Electric Company
[MERALCO] vs. Castillo, 688 SCRA 455 [2013])
In Quisumbing v. Manila Electric Company, 380 SCRA
195 (2002), this Court treated the immediate disconnection
of electricity without notice as a form of deprivation of
property without due process of law, which entitles the
subscriber aggrieved to moral damages. (Id.)

——o0o——
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

G.R. No. 195145. February 10, 2016. Manila Electric Company, Petitioner, vs. Spouses SULPICIO and PATRICIA RAMOS, Respondents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 195145. February 10, 2016. Manila Electric Company, Petitioner, vs. Spouses SULPICIO and PATRICIA RAMOS, Respondents

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 195145. February 10, 2016. Manila Electric Company, Petitioner, vs. Spouses SULPICIO and PATRICIA RAMOS, Respondents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/21/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 783

G.R. No. 195145. February 10, 2016.*

Electric Power Industry; Electricity Pilferage; Anti-Electricity

598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

these remedies within legal bounds, in strict compliance with

VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 599

Same; Same; Same; Public Utilities; System Losses; While the

payment of the differential billing, we rule that the

600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Exemplary Damages;

and as a deterrent against the repetition of socially deleterious

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

1 Petition for Review on Certiorari, Rollo, pp. 8-29.

VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 601

Ramos v. Manila Electric Company,” that affirmed the

3 Penned by Presiding Judge Placido C. Marquez, id., at pp. 123-144.

602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the same day. The inspection and disconnection were

electric service and the award of actual, moral, and

VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 603

In its assailed July 30, 2010 decision,5 the CA denied the

dated January 3, 2011. The present petition for review on

5 Id., at pp. 36-50.

604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

electric service was done in good faith and in the lawful

notice. They claim that this breach of contract, coupled

8 Id., at pp. 223-240.

VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 605

respondents upon discovery of an outside connection

constitute as prima facie evidence of illegal use of

9 Samar II Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Quijano, G.R. No. 144474,

606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The presence of government agents who may

electric facilities; and second, even if there is prima facie

11 Quisumbing v. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 142943, April 3,

VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 607

Under the present situation, there is no doubt that

immediately disconnect the respondents’ electric

13 See Petition for Review on Certiorari, Rollo, p. 22.

608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

MERALCO’s demand letter for payment of the

The disconnection of respondents’

accordingly and if the adjusted bill is not paid,

VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 609

nect electric service arises only after the customer has

installed the outside connection attached on their electric

610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

electric meter, nor were any of their representatives at

15 Go v. Leyte II Electric Cooperative, Inc., G.R. No. 176909, February

VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 611

On the issue of damages

electricity for eight (8) months at their home in Tondo,

19 Oceaneering Contractors (Phils.), Inc. v. Barretto, G.R. No. 184215,

612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the presentation of a contract of lease and receipts for

neighborhood of stealing electricity through the use of an

VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 613

aggravated by their decision to move to a new residence

24 Manila Electric Company v. Jose, G.R. No. 152769, February 14,