Dear PAO,

I have been renting out my condominium unit since 2018. Since then, I have not been in the possession of the said unit, and my lessee has been using it as a 24/7 fitness center. To my surprise, I received a letter from the electric company demanding a total amount of P800,000 representing back charges in electricity bill. This was allegedly accessed after a routine inspection of the metering installation revealed that a sealing wire of the electric meter was cut and the meter registered only 29% of the total electric energy consumed since 2019. My lessee and I have no knowledge of, nor consented to, any tampering of the electric meter. Can I be held liable to pay the back charges dating back from 2019?

Selma

Dear Selma,

You may not be held liable for the back charges imposed on your electricity bill.

In the landmark case of Ridjo Tape et al. vs. Manila Electric Co., et al., G.R. No. 126074, 24 February 1998, the Supreme Court emphasized through Associate Justice Flerida Ruth Romero the duty of public utilities, specifically an electric company, to maintain and inspect the electric meters of its customers in order to avoid the exorbitant surcharges to the detriment of the consuming public, to wit:

“Corollarily, 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. xxx

“Accordingly, we are left with no recourse but to conclude 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 installed within the premises of petitioners was obviously the proximate cause of the instant dispute between the parties.

“Indeed, if an unusual electric consumption was not reflected in the statements of account of petitioners, MERALCO, considering its technical knowledge and vast experience in providing electric service, could have easily verified any possible error in the meter reading. In the absence of such a mistake, the electric meters themselves should be inspected for possible defects or breakdowns and forthwith repaired and, if necessary, replaced. Furthermore, if MERALCO discovered that contraptions or illegal devices were installed which would alter the result of the meter reading, then it should have filed the appropriate criminal complaint against petitioners under Presidential Decree No. 401.”

In another case, the Ridjo Doctrine was applied where the Supreme Court ruled that “it is settled that electricity distribution utilities, which rely on mechanical devices and equipment for the orderly undertaking of their business, are duty-bound to make reasonable and proper periodic inspections of their equipment. If they are remiss in carrying out this duty due to their own negligence, they risk forfeiting the amounts owed by the customers affected.” (Manila Electric Company, et al., vs. Nordec Philippines and/or Marvex Industrial Corp., G.R. No. 196020, April 18, 2018, Ponente: Honorable Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen)

Taken together, the electric company cannot arbitrarily demand back charges, dating back to 2019, based solely on allegations of defective electric meter readings. As a public utility, it has the duty and technical capability to promptly inspect and detect defective electric meters. Failure to do so constitutes inexcusable negligence which may run the risk of forfeiting any fees or charges originally due from their customers.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]