"!lepublit of tbe ~bilippines ~upeme QCout ;fflanila FIRST DIVISION :...,;-'~:... ~. t ~>;.. f :..:. f :.~ i'... 1. ; J 1 :.;,.. ; ~ili(ll.t\111.hi ~Hit.; 1 1 ; ~,- ilif~m.c..i 1 1 1 \ I I j '' I '!-; 1! 1 I ( ~ l SEP 09 2016 d I 'Jj J''il!J' I.. \ \ Ii: ~~~ :""'!!""'7-1... &..-...J..,,,,,.,.:,... I..._ ~ '>:. -,,.:1?> :- 1~11E.,...;.J.:,. NATIONAL TRANSMISSION G.R. No. 195138 CORPORATION, Petitione, Pesent: - vesus - MISAMIS ORIENTAL I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Respondent. SERENO, CJ, Chaipeson, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN, PERLAS-BERNABE, and CAGUIOA,JJ PomAtJGtt:1t 2016 x----------------------------------------------- SERENO, CJ: DECISION This is a Petition 1 fo Review on Cetioai dated 1 Febuay 2011 seeking to set aside the Decision 2 dated 20 Apil 2010 and Resolution 3 dated 3 Janu~y 2011 endeed by the Cout of Appeals (CA), Eighth Division, in CA-G.R. SP No. 108322. The assailed ulings affimed the Enegy Regulatoy Commission (ERC) Decision 4 dated 30 June 2008 and Ode 5 dated 16 Mach 2009 in ERC Case No. 2004-463. THE ANTECEDENT FACTS The facts as summaized by the CA ae as follows: Petitione National Tansmission Copoation (heeafte Tansco) is a govenment-owned and contolled copoation located in Iligan City 1 Rollo, pp. 3-24. 2 Id. at 27-41; penned by Associate Justice Ruben C. Ayson and concued in by Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Nomandie B. Pizao. 3 Id. at 42-44. 4 Id. at 45-56; composed of Chaiman Rodolfo B. Albano, J. and Commissiones Rauf A. Tan, Maia Teesa A.R. Castaneda, Alejando Z. Bain and Jose C. Reyes. 5 Id. at 134-137; composed of Chaiman Zenaida G. Cuz-Ducut and Commissiones Rauf A. Tan, Maia Teesa A.R. Castaneda, Alejando Z. Bain and Jose C. Reyes.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 195138 ".,.,I,..; and is engaged in the business of tansmitting electic powe. It tansmits to its consumes electicity geneated by Mindanao Geneation Copoation (heeafte Genco). By vitue of Republic Act No. 9136, 6 Tansco assumed the electical tansmission function, while Genco, the electicity geneation function, of the National Powe Copoation '(heeafte NPC)..'ll ~ ~. Respondent Misamis Oiental I Electic Coopeative, Inc. (peeafte MORESCO I) is an electic coopeative engaged in the business >tf., of distibuting electic powe to its membes-consumes in the westen pat of Misamis Oiental. Sometime in May 2002, NPC and MORESCO I signed a Tansition Contact fo the Supply of Electicity, othewise known as Tansition Supply Contact (heeafte TSC) wheeby the fome obligated itself to supply and sell electicity to the latte. Attached to the TSC as Annex C is a document entitled Chages and Adjustments, Section 25 of which povides: ADJUSTMENT DUE TO INACCURATE METERS AND ERRONEOUS BILLINGS WITHIN A BILLING PERIOD 25. In the event that a billing is found eoneous due to a wong eading, aithmetical mistakes o omissions, SUPPLIER shall send CUSTOMER a debit/cedit memo within ninety (90) days fom the date of bill's eceipt to coect the eo. SUPPLIER shall also be deemed to waive any claim on any billing eo if it fails to send notice fo such billing eo to CUSTOMER within ninety (90) days fom billing date. Povided, that if the eo is due to an inaccuate mete, said eo may be coected anytime. (Emphasis supplied) xx xx Pusuant to the contact, Tansco and Genco began supplying electicity to MORESCO I. Fo billing puposes, Tansco installed a kilowatt hou (kwh) billing mete device at Meteing Point No. 6 in Opol Substation, Misamis Oiental to detemine the amount of electicity used by MORESCO I. The computation of the actual consumption of electicity by the said billing mete device equied the factoing in of a multiplie to the mete eading. The value of the multiplie is the poduct of the values of the intenal multiplie and the extenal multiplie peculia to the billing mete device. The multiplie in the mete device used at the time was 1,000. Accodingly, this value was used in the computation of the bill of MORESCO I. The billing date appeas to be the 25 111 of each month as this was the cut-off date of each monthly billing peiod. On July 30, 2003, Tansco eplaced the billing mete device of MORESCO I in the pesence of MORESCO I pesonnel, including its Mete Calibato, M. Enie C. Janobas. As the multiplie is inheent in the mete device, the change in the said device bought a coesponding change in the multiplie. The old billing mete device had a multiplie of Q 6 AN ACT ORDAINING REFORMS IN THE ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN LAWS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES o the Electic Powe Industy Refom Act of2001.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 195138 1,000 and the new one had a multiplie of 3,500. This necessaily affected the electicity eading inasmuch as the highe multiplie value would esult to a highe electicity consumption eading. Tansco then conducted a Mete Test theeon and M. Enie C. Janobas, as witness to the Mete Test, signed the Mete Test Repot pepaed by Tansco. The mete test showed that the newly installed billing mete device was calibated and found to be accuate. It was Tansco which indicated on the face of the Repot that the multiplie was 5,250, notwithstanding that the actual multiplie was 3,500. M. Janobas did not veify the 5,250 multiplie value of the new billing mete device. Then, Tansco conducted electicity consumption eadings on the new mete and billed MORESCO I evey billing peiod beginning on the. 26th of a given month and ending on the 25th of the next month. It late discoveed that it inadvetently used an incoect multiplie of 3,500 instead of 5,250 fo the billing peiods stating fom August 26, 2003 up to June 25, 2004. The use of the incoect multiplie esulted to an undebilling. Hence, Tansco sent MORESCO I on July 13, 2004 an adjustment bill o a debit/cedit memo dated July 9, 2004 in the amount of six million fou hundfed sixty-two thousand seven hunded ninety-nine and eightyone centavos (P6,462,797.81) (sic) coveing the ten (10) billing peiods fom August 26, 2003 up to June 25, 2004. On July 23, 2004 Genco, though NPC, sent MORESCO I anothe adjustment bill dated July 20, 2004 in the amount of eleven million fou hunded sixty-thee thousand nine hunded eight pesos and eighty-five centavos (P 11,463,908.85). This sepaate bill coveed the following billing peiods, which wee the same peiods used by Tansco: 1st July 26, 2003 2nd August 26, 2003 3d Septembe 26, 2003-4th Octobe 26, 2003 5th Novembe 26, 2003 6th Decembe 26, 2003?1 11 Januay 26, 2004 8 1 h Febuay 26, 2004 9th Mach 26, 2004 10~ Apil26,2004 11th May 26, 2004 August 25, 2003 Septembe 25, 2003 Octobe 25, 2003 Novembe 25, 2003 Decembe 25, 2003 Januay 25, 2004 Febuay 25, 2004 Mach 25, 2004 Apil 25, 2004 May 25, 2004 June 25, 2004 The two adjustment bills o debit/cedit memos eflected the total amount of seventeen million nine hunded twenty-six thousand seven hunded six pesos and sixty-six centavos (Pl 7,926,706.66) allegedly due Tansco and Genco. Howeve, MORESCO I believed that it was liable fo the total amount of only fou million two hunded twenty thousand foty-seven pesos and seventeen centavos (P 4,220,047.17) coveing the 9t\ 10th and 11th billing peiods adveted to above instead of Pl 7,926,706.66 pusuant to Section 25 of Annex C to the TSC. On Octobe 11, 2004, MORESCO I fomally offeed to pay Tansco and Genco P4,220,047.l 7. It claimed that since the omission o failue of Tansco and Genco to apply the ight multiplie is consideed a
Decision 4 G.R. No. 195138 Q "wong eading, omission o aithmetical mistake," unde Section 25 of Annex C to the TSC, Tansco and Genco should have sent the adjustment bill, debit/cedit memo o a notice of such billing eo within ninety (90) days fom the bill's eceipt, which is pesumably evey 25th of the month as this was the last day of each billing peiod. Othewise, Tansco and Genco shall be deemed to have waived the payment of the amount theeof. Since Tansco and Genco sent the adjustment bills o debit/cedit memos fo the billing peiods efeed to above only on July 4 and 20, 2004, the ight to collect on the amount on the adjusted bill epesenting the 1st to 8 111 billing peiods had aleady pescibed because the billings with espect to these peiods wee made beyond the 90-day pesciptive peiod. On the othe hand, the adjustment bills coveing the 9t11, 10 1 h and 11th billing peiods emained due and payable because these wee the bills coveed within the 90-day pesciptive peiod eckoned fom July 4 and 20, 2004, the dates of the adjustment bills. Tansco and Genco ejected MORESCO I's offe to pay. 7 THE RULING OF THE ERC A petition 8 dated 23 Novembe 2004 was filed befoe the ERC by Moesco I against petitione Tansco, along with Mindanao Geneation Copoation (Genco) and National Powe Copoation (NPC). Afte both paties submitted the equied pleadings and paticipated in the heaings, the ERC concluded that Moesco I must not be held liable to pay the amount claimed by the NPC and Tansco. Rathe, it was deemed liable only fo the amount epesenting the coected billings made within the 90-day pesciptive peiod eckoned fom the time the adjustments wee made. 9 The ERC also held that MORESCO I should be allowed to avail itself of the Pompt Payment Discount, consideing that the latte was willing to pay its aeaages, but the NPC and Tansco efused. 1 Finally, the ERC uled that Moesco I was not emiss in the latte's obligations and could not be declaed to be at fault. 11 The ERC endeed its Decision dated 30 June 2008, the dispositive potion of which eads: WHEREFORE, the foegoing pemises consideed, the Commission finds that Misamis Oiental I Electic Coopeative, Inc. (MORESCO I) is liable to pay only the total amount of Fou Million Two Hunded Twenty Thousand Foty-Seven Pesos and Seventeen Centavos (PhP4,220,047.l 7) epesenting the amount equivalent to thee (3) months billing counted fom the time of notice. SO ORDERED. 12 7 Rollo, pp. 28-32. 8 Id. at 141-144; docketed as ERC Case No. 2004-463. 9 Id. at 54. 10 Id. at 55. 11 Id. 12 Id.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 195138 A Motion fo Reconsideation dated 1 Septembe 2008 was filed by petitione 13 and anothe one, dated 3 Septembe 2008 by the NPC, 14 both asking that the Decision be set aside. 15 In the Ode dated 16 Mach 2009, howeve, the ERC denied both motions fo lack of meit. 16 THE RULING OF THE CA Of the thee espondents in the ERC case, only petitione filed an appeal 17 befoe the CA to which Moesco I filed a Comment. 18 Unconvinced, the appellate cout denied the Petition fo lack of meit. Tansco filed its Motion fo Reconsideation 19 futhe agumg as follows: Respondent was well awae of the coect multiplie to be applied to thei billing consumptions. Moe impotantly, Respondent was likewise awae that the billings it eceived fo the peiod August 26, 2003 to June 25, 2004 applied an incoect mete multiplie. Howeve, despite knowledge theeof, Respondent did not bothe to infom Petitione and NPC of the eo and enjoyed the benefits of the lowe powe bills fo ten (10) billing peiods. Fo this eason, equity dictates that Respondent should be held liable to Petitione and NPC fo the amount equivalent to what it eceived having been unjustly eniched at the expense of the latte. 20 The motion was denied. Hence, this petition imputing evesible eo to the CA in its affimation of the ERC uling. Respondent filed its Comment 21 dated 13 Febuay 2013. THE ISSUE The sole issue to be esolved by this Cout is whethe the CA committed evesible eo in affiming the ERC's uling that Tansco's failue to install the coect device that was eflective of the multiplie used in the billing indeed constituted an omission unde Section 25 of Annex "C" of the Tansition Contact, which should thus be ectified within 90 days fom eceipt of the bill. 13 Id. at 134. 14 Id. 1s Id. 16 Id. at 137. 17 Id. at 100-118. 18 Id. at 261-275. 19 Id. at 203-213. 20 Id. at 203-204. 21 Id. at 312-333.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 195138 OuRRULING The pesent contovesy calls fo the application of Section 25 of the Tansition Supply Contact, to wit: 25. In the event that a billing is found eoneous due to a wong eading, aithmetical mistakes o omissions, SUPPLIER shall send CUSTOMER a debit/cedit memo within ninety (90) days fom the date of bill's eceipt to coect the eo. SUPPLIER shall also be deemed to waive any claim on any billing eo if it fails to send notice fo such billing eo to CUSTOMER within ninety (90) days fom billing date. Povided, that if ~ the eo is due to an inaccuate mete, said eo may be coected anytime. 22 Two categoies of eo in billing ae evidently envisioned by the povision: (1) eo due to a wong eading, o an aithmetical mistake o omission, which may be coected only within 90 days fom the date of custome's eceipt of the bill, else, the claim shall be deemed waived; and (2) eo due to an inaccuate mete, which may be coected any time. Invoking the second categoy of eo, petitione, along with Genco, sent Debit/Cedit Memos dated 9 and 20 July 2004 to espondent, asking payment of P6,462,797.81 23 and Pl 1,463,908.85, 24 o a total amount of Pl 7,926,706.66. Aguing that the situation called instead fo the application of the fist categoy of eo, espondent pomptly offeed to pay P4,220,047.17. 25 This 22 Id. at 180. 23 Id. at 97. 24 Id. at 98; the Summay of Revised Powe Bill of MORESCO I M6 & M7, is pesented as follows Billing Peiod AS BILLED AS REVISED TOT AL AMOUNT (Peso) (Peso) DUE A B (Peso) C=B-A Jul 26-Aug 25, 2003 7,467,274.10 8,219,938.33 752,664.23 Aug 26-Sep 25, 2003 7,299,752.00 8,320,258.68 1,020,506.68 Sep 26-0ct 25, 2003 7,261,105.74 8,283,612.32 1,022,506.58 Oct 26-Nov 25, 2003 7,292,453.16 8,425,539.57 I, l 33,086.41 Nov 26-Dec 25, 2003 7,102,578.91 8,362,964.51 1,260,385.60 Dec 26-Jan 25, 2004 7,027,655.32 8,245,448.34 1,217,793.02 Jan 26-Feb 25, 2004 8,023,428.96 9, l 59,591.09 1, 136, 162.13 Feb 26-Ma 25, 2004 7,332,711.51 8,4 l l,84 l.23 l.079, 129.72 Ma 26-Ap 25, 2004 7,733,558.42 8,910,881.11 I, 177,322.69 Ap 26-May 25, 2004 8,379,560.08 l 0, l 56,502.42 1,776,942.34 May 26-Jun 25, 2004 13,262,078.14 13, 149,487.59 ( 112,590.55) TOTAL 11,463,908.85 25 Id. at 189; the Summay is as follows Billin2 Peiod NPC TRANSCO TOTAL Mach 26-Apil 25, 2004 I, 177,322.69 681,082.68 1,858,405.37 (eceived July 23, 2004) Apil 26-May 25, 2004 1,776,942.34 697,290.01 2,474,232.35 (eceived July 13, 2004) May 26-June 25, 2004 ( 112,590.55) (eo aleady (I l 2,590.55) coected) TOTAL 2,841,674.48 1,378,372.69 4,220,047.17
Decision 7 G.R. No. 195138 amount coesponded to the 9t\ 1 ot\ and 11th billing peiods coveed by the 90 days within which to ectify the eo. 26 The ERC decided in favo of espondent, and the CA affimed the judgment. We find no evesible eo in the CA's affimance of the ERC uling. The ERC concluded that Tansco failed to povide the coect mete multiplie when it installed the new mete - a clea omission that esulted in an eoneous billing. 27 This finding was affimed in the CA uling which we quote in full and with appoval: We hold that the eo in the billing due to an application of an incoect mete is an omission within the ambit of the fist sentence of Section 25, Annex C to the TSC. x x x. xx xx The eo committed by petitione Tansco was an om1ss10n because it failed to use the coect mete device, that is, one with a multiplie of 5,250, notwithstanding its admission in the Mete Test Repot that it used the said multiplie. When Tansco and Genco computed the billings fo espondent MORESCO I fo the months following the installation of the new mete device, they belatedly discoveed that the new device had a multiplie of 3,500 instead of 5,250. This explained the unde-billings. We note that when Tansco installed the new mete device, it believed that the multiplie of which was 5,250 when, in eality, it was 3,500. The eo was caused by Tansco's own act of installing a mete device with a multiplie of 3,500 which was diffeent fom what it was supposed to install, that is, one with a multiplie of 5,250. Stated diffeently, Tansco's omission consists in failing to install a device with a 5,250 multiplie. If thee was any eo in the pesent case, it was only in Tansco's belief that the intenal multiplie of the new mete device was 5,250 instead of 3,500. Consideing that a multiplie is an inheent component of evey mete device, as Tansco expessly so stated, the coect mete device with a multiplie of 5,250 could have been available to it o, if not, within its means to obtain, had it only execised odinay diligence. 28 It is a well-entenched ule that "by eason of the special knowledge and expetise of administative agencies ove mattes falling unde thei juisdiction, they ae in a bette position to pass judgment theeon; thu~ thei findings of fact in that egad ae geneally accoded geat espect, if not finality, by the couts." 29 This ule holds tue especially in this case, in 26 Id. 27 Rollo, p. 137. 28 Id. at 35-36. 29 So/mayo v. Aoyo, 520 Phil. 854, 875 (2006); Bulifan v. COA, 360 Phil. 626 ( 1998); Villaflo v. CA, 345 Phil. 524 ( 1997). ~
Decision 8 G.R. No. 195138 "" which the findings ae suppoted by substantial evidence, 30 and even moe afte these have been affimed by the CA. 31 The conclusion was not without suppoting substantial evidence. Pat of the ecods was the Mete Test Repot, which eadily confimed that thee was no inaccuate mete. That epot shows that the device was calibated in the pesence of epesentatives of both paties to this Petition; that thee tials wee conducted to detemine the accuacy of the new device; and that the aveage accuacy of the device was 100.1%. 32 Also cucial to the ERC's conclusion, which was subsequently affimed by the CA, was the testimony of petitione's witness, M. Edgado Oencia. He expounded on the meaning of "eo due to inaccuate mete"; that is, it is one that cannot be eadily detected, but can only be shown using cetain tools, instuments and/o histoical o statistical data. 33 He hastily pointed, howeve, that the mete-eading eo could eadily be obseved by just looking at the mete-eading epot attached to evey billing funished by petitione to espondent. 34 This fact bolstes the inevitable conclusion that in ode to detect a billing eo, no special instument o tool was necessay - a tool othewise equied when the eo is due to an inaccuate mete. We theefoe see no eason to depat fom the assailed uling. The claim that Moesco I was unjustly eniched at the expense of petitione is equally untenable fo a simple eason. Because a contact exists between the paties, the obligations aising theefom have the foce of law between the paties and must be complied with in good faith. 35 WHEREFORE, pemises consideed, the instant Petition is heeby DENIED. SO ORDERED. MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO Chief Justice, Chaipeson 30 Santos v. Manalili, 512 Phil. 324 (2005). 31 Public Estates Authoity v. Uy, 423 Phil. 407 (2001). 32 1d.at37. 33 Id. 34 Id. 35 Aticle 1159 of the Civil Code.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 195138 WE CONCUR: ~~ft~ TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice ESTELA M~E~BERNABE Associate Justice S. CAGUIOA CERTIFICATION Pusuant to Section 13, Aticle VIII of the Constitution, I cetify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been eached in consultation befoe the case was assigned to the wite of the opinion of the Cout. MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO Chief Justice..