Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

G.R. No. 196020, April 18, 2018 Meralco, Et - Al V. Nordec Philippines And/Or Marvex Industrial G.R. No. 196116, April 18, 2018 Nordec Philippines And/Or Marvex Industrial V. Meralco, Et - Al. Facts

This document summarizes two cases involving Meralco, a power distribution company, and Nordec Philippines/Marvex Industrial regarding disputed electricity bills and disconnection of service. Meralco inspected Marvex's metering devices twice and found tampering, resulting in differential billing of over P496,000. Nordec, the new owner of Marvex, disputed the billing and inspections. The Supreme Court held that as the beneficial user of the electricity supply, Nordec has a cause of action against Meralco, even though the service contract was under Marvex's name. Meralco is considered to have knowledge that Nordec was the beneficial user, as it corresponded with and obtained consent from Nordec regarding the

Uploaded by

Lara Cacal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views2 pages

G.R. No. 196020, April 18, 2018 Meralco, Et - Al V. Nordec Philippines And/Or Marvex Industrial G.R. No. 196116, April 18, 2018 Nordec Philippines And/Or Marvex Industrial V. Meralco, Et - Al. Facts

This document summarizes two cases involving Meralco, a power distribution company, and Nordec Philippines/Marvex Industrial regarding disputed electricity bills and disconnection of service. Meralco inspected Marvex's metering devices twice and found tampering, resulting in differential billing of over P496,000. Nordec, the new owner of Marvex, disputed the billing and inspections. The Supreme Court held that as the beneficial user of the electricity supply, Nordec has a cause of action against Meralco, even though the service contract was under Marvex's name. Meralco is considered to have knowledge that Nordec was the beneficial user, as it corresponded with and obtained consent from Nordec regarding the

Uploaded by

Lara Cacal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

G.R. No.

196020, April 18, 2018


MERALCO, [Link] v. NORDEC PHILIPPINES and/or MARVEX INDUSTRIAL

G.R. No. 196116, April 18, 2018


NORDEC PHILIPPINES and/or MARVEX INDUSTRIAL v. MERALCO, [Link].

FACTS:

Meralco was contracted to supply electricity to Marvex under an Agreement for Sale
of Electric Energy. It installed metering devices at Marvex's premises and Marvex was
billed according to the monthly electric consumption recorded in its meter. Meralco service
inspectors inspected Marvex's electric metering facilities and found that the main meter
terminal and cover seals had been tampered with. During a second inspection, Meralco
found that the metering devices were tampered with again. Subsequently, Meralco
assessed Marvex a differential billing in the total amount of P496,386.29. Meralco sent
demand letters and disconnected Marvex's electric service when it did not pay. Nordec, the
new owner of Marvex, sued Meralco for damages. It alleged that Meralco's service
inspectors conducted the inspections without its consent or approval. Following the
inspections, Meralco's inspectors gave an unnamed Nordec employee a Power Field Order
that did not mention the alleged defects in the metering devices. Nordec further claimed
that the parties exchanged letters on the alleged unregistered electric bill, and that it
requested a recomputation, which Meralco denied. However, Meralco asked Nordec to
show the basis for its recomputation request, to which Nordec complied. Meralco required
Nordec to pay P371,919.58 for the unregistered electricity bill. Nordec then informed
Meralco of the pending resolution of the recomputation. Nordec claimed that Meralco then
disconnected its service without prior notice, resulting to loss of income and cancellation of
other business opportunities. In its defense, Meralco claimed that the inspections had been
conducted in the presence of Nordec's representatives. Further, Meralco had repeatedly
warned Nordec of service disconnection in case of failure to pay the differential bill. Finally,
it averred that there was no contractual relation between Nordec and Marvex, and that
Nordec and its president, Dr. Potenciano Malvar, failed to show proof that they were
authorized to sue on Marvex's behalf.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Nordec Philippines has a cause of action against MERALCO.

HELD:

Yes. A cause of action "is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of
another." For a cause of action to exist, there must be, first, a plaintiff's legal right; second,
defendant's correlative obligation; and third, an injury to the plaintiff as a result of the
defendant's violation of plaintiff's right. Furthermore, in Manila Electric Company v. Spouses
Chua, the Court held that it was the beneficial users who were awarded damages due to the
unjust disconnection of the electric supply, even though the service contract with Meralco
was registered in the name of another person.
 Here, Nordec as the beneficial user of an electric service has a cause of action
against this distribution utility. Further, Meralco is deemed to have knowledge of the fact
that Nordec was the beneficial user of Marvex's service contract with Meralco. It admits
that the inspections of the metering devices were conducted in the presence of Nordec's
maintenance personnel and with the consent of its manager. It further admits that it
corresponded with Nordec regarding the differential billing, and entertained Nordec's
demand for an explanation on the finding of tampering and the recomputation of the
amount to be paid by Nordec. Clearly, Meralco knew that it was dealing with Nordec as the
beneficial user of the electricity supply.

You might also like