Republic of the ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION San Miguel Avenue, City

MARILOU PINEDA, Complainant,

-versus- ERC CASE NO. 2009-049CC

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), Respondent, )(------)(

DECISION

Before this Commission for resolution is the verified complaint filed by Marilou Pineda on February 27, 2009 against the Electric Company (MERALCO) for imposing a differential billing due to an alleged tampered meter.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Culled from the records of the case, it appears that as early as September 2008, complainant complained to MERALCO of the sudden increase in her electric consumption amounting to PhP 4,686.65 brought about by a fast meter. After MERALCO acted on it, her October 2008 bill decreased to PhP2,374.16. However, in November 2008, complainant's electric bill jumped up to PhP 4,772.15 which prompted her to request MERALCO to have her meter replaced.1 Thus, on November 21, 2008, a MERALCO personnel conducted a routine inspection on complainant's metering facilities located at 274 Coloong II, Valenzuela City. During the inspection, the MERALCO personnel found the cover seal of the subject meter (No. 34DSN35224) broken. Accordingly, the MERALCO personnel recommended that the meter be subjected for laboratory testing and be replaced as contained in the Metering Facilities Inspection Report (MFIR). Notably, the service meter was registered in the name of Charles Pineda, the husband of the complainant under Service Identification Number (SIN)

1Annex "A", Complaint, "ACKNOWLEDGEMENT" letter from CWD Officer, MERALCO's Valenzuela Branch to the complainant dated 18 November 2008 re:

REQUESTFOR METER TEST ERCCase No. 2009-049CC Decision/16 December 2013 Page 2 of 4

595774401. Upon testing, the removed meter was found to be tampered by cutting the sealing wire and the dial pointers of the subject meter were out of alignment.

As a consequence thereof, MERALCO demanded that complainant pay the amount of Eighteen Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty One Pesos and 10/100 (PhP18,721.10) representing the unregistered consumption from December 10, 2007 to November 21, 2008 based on the highest recorded monthly electric consumption within the five-year billing period preceding the time of inspection/discovery.

Complainant averred that during the November 21, 2008 routine inspection, the MERALCO personnel repeatedly pounded the meter while removing it and after its removal, even continued to pound it for several minutes. She cautioned them that the meter might be destroyed due to the repeated poundings done but was assured otherwise with a notice that it will be subjected to laboratory tests. After the meter was removed, she was made to sign a document purportedly acknowledging its replacement. After signing the document, the MERALCO personnel left but she noticed that the former made writings on it. To her surprise, in December 2008, MERALCO refused her payment of her bill unless she settled first the aforecited differential billing. However, due to her persistence, her payment was accepted. The same incident happened when she tried to settle her January 2009 electric bill. Hence, she was constrained to file the instant complaint.

Several pre-hearing conferences were conducted by the Commission to explore the possibility of arriving at an amicable settlement. However, no settlement was reached. Thus, by agreement of both parties, the Rules on Summary Procedure was applied to this case.

On various dates, complainant and MERALCO submitted their respective Position Papers with documentary evidence.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not complainant tampered the removed meter.

2. Whether or not complainant is liable for the differential billing amounting to PhP18,721.10 representing the unregistered consumption from December 10, 2007 to November 21, 2008.

DISCUSSION

As the issues herein are closely intertwined, the same shall be discussed jointly. ERCCase No. 2009-049CC Decision/16 December 2013 Page 3 of 4

Upon evaluation of the facts and evidence on hand, the Commission finds that complainant did not tamper the removed meter.

Firstly, on the day of the inspection on November 21, 2008, the terminal seal of the meter was found intact and in normal condition as shown by the Inspection Report prepared by the MERALCO Inspector Mr. Jesus P. Limin. Significantly, cutting the wire of the cover seals and tinkering the dial pointers of the meter cannot be done without first breaking the terminal seal because the latter serves as an external device to protect the internal part of the meter, including its cover seals, from being tampered.

Secondly, tampering is committed by consumers to prevent the meter from registering the correct amount of electric consumption, and result in a reduced monthly electric bill, while continuing to enjoy the same power supply. Only the registration of actual electric energy consumption, not the supply of electricity, is affected when a meter is tampered with.2 Stated otherwise, when the meter is tampered with, the registered electric consumption is affected. Consequently, in case of the removal of the tampered meter and the installation of a new one, the registered consumption necessarily increases.3 However, in the instant case, this is belied by complainant's monthly electricity consumption (Annex "10") for the affected period December 10, 2007 to November 21, 2008 (before the discovery) and after the installation of the new meter (after the discovery). Palpably, there was no sudden or abnormal drop in her electricity consumption. In fact, the average monthly electricity consumption of the complainant before the discovery was even higher compared to after the subject meter was replaced. Had the removed meter been tinkered to a desired consumption, complainant's bill after its replacement would have increased.

Lastly, it bears stressing that it was the complainant who requested for the replacement of her electric meter due to its abnormal registration. She even requested MERALCO to check the subject meter months prior to its replacement. Had she known before hand of the abnormal conditions of the meter or had she knowingly benefitted from an unregistered electricity consumption by tampering the meter, common sense dictates that she would not report it to MERALCO or would not request for its replacement as she would be MERALCO's main suspect once the tampering came to light.4

2 Manila Electric Company v. T.EAM. Electronics Corporation G.R. No. 131723, December 13, 2007. 3 Manila Electric Company v. Wilcon Builders Supply, Inc., G.R. No. 171534, June 30, 2008 4 MERALCO VS. Sps. Edito and Felicidad Chua and Josefina Paqueo, G.R. No. 160422, July 5,2010 ERCCase No. 2009-049CC Decision/16 December 2013 Page 4of4

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission finds that MERALCO failed to substantiate its findings that complainant tampered the removed meter.

Accordingly, complainant Marilou Pineda is not liable to pay the differential billing of Eighteen Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty One Pesos and 10/100 (PhP18, 721.10) being imposed by Manila Electric Company (MERALCO).

SO ORDERED.

Pasig City, December 16,2013. ~'~ A r~ j ENAIDA G( CRUZ-DUCUT . Chairperson

ALFRE 0 J. NON Commissioner

JOSEFINA P -f-. : MAGPALE-ASIRIT miSSioner

EMAlAPV/MCCG

Copy furnished:

1. ATTY. CELESTE CANETE Counsel for MERALCO Legal Department , Pasig City

2. MARlLOU PINEDA 274 Coloong II, Valenzuela City