RIDJO TAPE & CHEMICAL CORP. and RIDJO PAPER CORP vs. CA et al

RIDJO TAPE & CHEMICAL CORP. and RIDJO PAPER CORP vs. CA et al
GR No 126074. 24 Feb 1998.

Ponente: Romero, J.:

FACTS: This is a petition to review the decision of the CA which reversed that of the RTC of Quezon City, ordering petitioners to pay private respondent Manila Electric Co. (MERALCO) the amount of P415,317.66 and P89,710.58 plus the costs of suit.
On September 4, 1991 and on July 30, 1992, petitioners received a letter from MERALCO demanding payment of P415,317.66 and P89,710.58 , respectively, allegedly representing unregistered electric consumption for the period November 7, 1990, to February 13, 1991 and for the period July 15, 1991 to April 13, 1992. MERALCO justified its demand on the ground that the unregistered electric consumption was due to the defects of the electric meter located in the premises of petitioners. Since petitioners refused to pay the amount, MERALCO notified them that their electricity be disconnected.

ISSUE: WON petitioners should pay the amounts demanded by Meralco despite the defective meter installed by the latter.

RULING: Decision MODIFIED. Petitioners are ordered to pay MERALCO the amount P168,342.75, representing its average electric consumption three months prior to the period in controversy.
It must be underscored that MERALCO has the imperative duty to make a reasonable and proper inspection of its apparatus and equipment to ensure that they do not malfunction, and the due diligence to discover and repair defects therein. Failure to perform such duties constitutes negligence.
The SC concludes that this is a case of negligence on the part of MERALCO for which it must bear the consequences. Its failure to make the necessary repairs and replacement of the defective electric meter was obviously the proximate cause of the instant dispute between the parties.
MERALCO, being a public utility vested with vital public interest, is impressed with certain obligations towards its customers and any omission on its part would be prejudicial to its interest. For in the final analysis, the bottom line is that those who do not exercise such prudence in the discharge of their duties shall be made to bear the consequences of such oversight.

*Daniq*