This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-07-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| While Ridjo involved a defective meter, we have, on occasion, applied this same doctrine to cases that involved allegations of meter tampering. In both Manila Electric Company v. Macro Textile Mills, Corp.[41] and Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Opena,[42] we faulted the electric companies involved for not immediately inspecting the electric meters after they noted a sudden drop in the consumer's registered electric consumption. Since, in both cases, the public utility companies allowed several years to lapse before deciding to conduct an inspection of the electric meters, we ruled that they were both negligent and consequently barred them from collecting their claims of differential billing against the consumers. | |||||
|
2008-06-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| This Court had the occasion to apply the foregoing rule in Manila Electric Company v. Macro Textile Mills Corp.,[33] Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Opeña,[34] and Manila Electric Company v. T.E.A.M. Electronics Corporation, et al.[35] Although there were allegations of tampering with the consumers' electric meters, this Court did not hesitate to apply the Ridjo doctrine in imputing negligence on the part of the public utility and in totally barring it from collecting its claim of differential billing. | |||||