Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. SPS. EDITO AND FELICIDAD CHUA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 195145 2016-02-10	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. SPS. SULPICIO AND PATRICIA RAMOS BRION, J.
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 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]
	GR No. 182976 2013-01-14	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. ATTY. PABLITO M. CASTILLO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Citing Quisumbing v. Manila Electric Company,[26] we reiterated the significance of this requirement in Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) v. Chua,[27] thus: 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.
	GR No. 182976 2013-01-14	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. ATTY. PABLITO M. CASTILLO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In the assailed Decision dated May 21, 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the award of moral damages and exemplary damages to respondents in the amount of P200,000 and P100,000, respectively. In line with prevailing jurisprudence, however, this Court deems the award of moral damages in the amount of P100,000[37] and exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000[38] appropriate in cases where Meralco has wrongfully disconnected electric service to its customer.