Anda di halaman 1dari 30

WILLIAM L.

CHAN,
Complainant,

ERC CASE NO. 2001-743


(ERB CASE NO. 2000-154)

- versus -

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY


(MERALCO),
Respondent.
)(-

- - - - ~- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-)(

D 0 C,&liil T Ii D
Date: ,~.t;~~
..~.,~~!5
~:'

_-V.Ll. .................-

DECISION

Prefatory Statement
Electricity is properly the enjoyment of which the
provider, such as [a distribution utility], may extend or
deny to others.' However, electricity is. not just any
properly, and [a distribution utility] is not just any properly
owner. Electricity is a basic necessity the generation and
distribution of which is imbued with public interest, and its
provider is a public utility subject to strict regulation by the
State in the exercise of police power. Failure to comply
with these regulations will give rise to the presumption of
bad faith or abuse of right. 1

Samar II Electric Cooperative, Incorporated (SAMELCO II) and Dacula vs. Quijano,
G.R. No. 144474, April 27, 2007 citing United States vs. Carlos, 21 Phil. 553, 560
(1911), Article 429 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic vs. Manila
EI.ectric Company, 440 Phil. 389, 397 (2002), and Manila Electric Company vs.
Hon. Lorna Navarro-Domingo, G.R. No. 161893, June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA /
363,371.

/1

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 2 of 28
This is the underlying reason why a public utility is
required to exercise utmost care and diligence in dealings
with its customers. To paraphrase the principle laid down
by the Supreme Court, a public utility has dominance over
its market and its customers.
Thus, in the regulation
thereof, the State considers the serious consequences
and hardships that a customer may stand to suffer upon
service disconnection as well as his relatively weak
bargaining position as against a public utility. 2
Conversely, a person who, under threat of service
disconnection, was made to settle excessive charges,
must be afforded the full protection of the laws. Thus, the
maxim: Nemo cum alterius detrimento protest (No
person should unjustly enrich himself at the expense
of another).
Before the Commission for resolution are the "Letter-Complaint"
and "Amended Complaint" filed on May 26, 1999 and February 15,
2001, respectively, by Mr. William L. Chan against the Manila Electric
Company (MERALCO) for alleged bloated and/or anomalous billings
and praying, among others, that the amount of PhP2,086,479.45 be
returned and reimbursed to him.
The facts of this case as gathered from the records are:

1.

Complainant Mr. Chan is doing business under the name


and style "B&W Ice Plant" with office address at No. 537
Arnaiz Avenue, Pasay City.
He is engaged in the
business of manufacturing tube ice;

2.

Respondent MERALCO is a private corporation organized


and existing, under the Philippine laws to operate, as i.t
does, as a public utility company and a monopoly, being a
grantee of a legislative franchise, under which it is
authorized, among others, to charge all customers or
users, including the government, for their respective
consumption of electric energy at the rates authorized by
the then Board of Energy (BOE) and the then Energy
Regulatory Board (ERB), now known as the Energy
Regulatory Commission (ERC);

Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) VS. Sps. Edito and Felicidad Chua, and
Josefina Paqueo, G.R. No. 160422, July 5, 201~

'1

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 3 of 28 .
3.

Upon approval of Mr. Chan's application for the supply of


electric power for his ice plant [Service Identification No.
(SIN) 800633901], MERALCO installed the necessary
electrical equipment.
Among these are Active Electric
Meter with No. 701 GE00067 and Reactive Electric Meter
with No. 701 DQAD16. Both electric meters were installed
outside the premises of his ice plant;

4.

On November 16, 1998, Mr. Chan discovered that one of


his kWh meters was missing and immediately reported
the same to MERALCO. This discovery was made when
he noticed that his monthly energy consumption was
consistently pegged at 165,240 kWh. for three (3)
consecutive months, particularly, the billing in the periods
of August 11, 1998 to September 11, 1998, September
11, 1998 to October 12, 1998, and October 12, 1998 to
November 11, 1998. He concluded that MERALCO billed
him based on assumed reading. He manifested that the
charges imposed by MERALCO, which was based on
estimated
energy
consumption,
is
unacceptable
considering that the ice plant's production decreased
during those periods and that it is higher than his average
monthly consumption;

5.

On November 20, 1998, MERALCO installed a new kWh


meter;

6.

Incidentally, on November 26, 1998, one of MERALCO's


representatives conducted a phase angle testing on the
newly installed kWh meter and discovered that the
installation of the new kWh meter was defective. On even
date, the said representative made the necessary
adjustments to rectify the installation defects;

7.

To avoid unnecessary service disconnection and/or


interruption, Mr. Chan paid his electricity consumptions as
billed by MERALCO under protest;

8.

Believing to have fully settled his obligations with


MERALCO, what prompted Mr. Chan to file the "LetterComplaint" and "Amended Complaint" was the billing
assessments he received on May 19, 1999 amounting to
PhP205,084.40 which must be settled on or before May
27, 199~

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 4 of 28

9.

Unsatisfied with the explanations given by MERALCO, he


instituted the foregoing complaints to recover, among
others, the total amount of PhP2,086,479.45, broken
down as follows:
Period

August 11, 1998 to September 11, 1998

541,877.85
Paid on October 23, 1998, Full Pa ment

September 11, 1998 to October 12, 1998

548,656.05
Paid on October 30, 1998, Full Pa ment

October 12, 1998 to November 11, 1998

389,559.73
Paid on Janua

November 11, 1998 to December 11, 1998

18, 1999, 70% of PhP556,513.90


335,549.80
Full Pa ment - Machine Validation

October 12,1998 to November 11, 1998*

101,202.55
Paid on Ma 26, 1999, Full Pa ment

November 11, 1998 to December 11, 1998*

103,881.85
Paid on Ma 26, 1999, Full Pa ment

Total

2,086,479.45
Note: * MERALCO's billing adjustment for the period September 11, 1998 to December 11, 1998
based on daily average energy consumption from August 11, 1998 to September 11, 1998 and
from November 26, 1998 to December 11, 1998 at 4,792 kWh/da
10.

In defense of the foregoing and despite having admitted


in its letter-reply dated December 9, 1998 as stated in its
"Answer with Counterclaim" filed on June 4, 2001, that for
the billing periods September 11, 1998 to October 12,
1998 and October 12, 1998 to November 11, 1998, there
were no actual meter readings on which the billings could
be properly based ostensibly due to the missing meter,
MERALCO believed it was then necessary to use the
same actual meter reading in kWh for the previous billing
period of August 11, 1998 to. September 11, 1998 at
165,240 kWh;

11.

It further alleged that the contract between the registered


customer Ms. Gina M. Chan and MERALCO, both parties
are covered by the "Terms and Conditions of Service", the

pertinentprovisionsof whichare asfOllf

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 5 of 28
"Terms and Conditions of Service

x xx.
Customer Liability:
In the event of loss of, or damage to
property of the Company through misuse or
negligence on the part of the Customer or his
employees or household members, the cost of
the necessary repairs or replacement thereof
shall be paid to the Company by the
Customer.
Customers will be held responsible for
tampering, interfering with, or breaking of
seals of meters or other equipment of the
Company
installed
on the
Customer's
premises, and shall be held liable for the
same in accordance with law. The Customer
agrees that no one except employees of the
Company showing proper identification card
shall be allowed to make any internal or
external adjustments of any meter or any
other piece of apparatus owned and belonging
to the Company.
The employees and/or representatives
of the Company are hereby given permission
by the Customer to enter its premises without
being liable to trespass to dwelling for the
purpose of inspecting, installing, reading,
removing, testing, replacing, or otherwise
disposing of its apparatus and properly and/or
removing the Company's entire property in the
event of the termination of the contract of any
cause.

xxx~

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 6 of 28
Payments:
Bills will be rendered by the Company to
the Customer monthly in accordance with the
applicable rate schedule. Said bills are
payable to collectors or at the main or branch
offices of the Company or its authorized banks
within ten (10) days after the regular reading
date of the electric meters. The word "month"
as used herein and in the rate schedule is
hereby defined to be the elapsed time
between two succeeding meter readings
approximately thirty (30) days apart. In the
event of the stoppage or the failure by any
meter to register the full amount of energy
consumed, the Customer shall be billed for
such period on an estimated consumption
based upon his use of energy in a similar
period of like use or the registration of the
check meter.
Discontinuance of Service:
The Company reserves the right to
discontinue service in case the Customer is in
arrears in the payment of bills or for failure to
pay the adjusted bills in those cases were the
meter stopped or failed to register the correct
amount of energy consumed, or for failure to
comply with any of these terms and conditions
or in case of or to prevent fraud upon the
Company. Before disconnection is made in
case of or to prevent fraud, the Company may
adjust the bill of said customer accordingly
and if the adjusted bill is not paid, the
Company may disconnect the same. In case
of disconnection, {he provisions of Revised
Order No. 1 of the former Public Service
Commission (now Board of Energy) shall be
observed. Any such suspension of service
shall not terminate the contract between the
Company and the Custome~

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 7 of 28
12.

Based on the foregoing provisions, MERALCO contended


that it has the contractual and legal right to disconnect
electric service for the default of its customers to pay its
regular bills or adjusted bills in those cases where the
meter stopped or failed to register the full amount of
electric energy consumed by Mr. Chan;

13.

MERALCO further contended that the use of estimated


consumption in cases where the meter fails to register the
actual
consumption
is contractually
and
legally
permissible as long as it is based on a similar period of
like use.
It is submitted that the use of a prior
consumption reading on subsequent billing periods is
covered by the above provision and falls under the phrase
"similar period of like use";

14.

On its part, MERALCO summarized the payments made


by Mr. Chan as follows:

Ms. Gina M. Chan - Service Identification No. 800633901


Ori~inal Bills
Amount
Period
Paid
Amount
Covered
kWh
(PhP)
(PhP)
August 11, 1998 to
165,240 541,877.85
541,877.85
September 11, 1998
(Paid on October
23,1998,
O.R. No. 25682)
September 11, 1998
165,240 548,565.05
548,565.05
to October 12, 1998
(Paid on October
23, 1998, O.R. No.
25682)
October 12, 1998 to
165,240 556,513.90
389,559.73
November 11, 1998
(Partial Payment
on January 1,
1999, OR No.
74846)
November 11, 1998 to
December 11, 1998

98,229

335,549.80

335,549.80
(Paid under Pay to
Cash Check No.
47530)

Adjusted Bills
Amount
kWh
(PhP)
(none)
(none)
164,240
541,877.85

Total
Payment
(PhP)
541,877.85

148,552

498,078.10

548,565.05
498,078.10
(50,486.95)

143,760

490,762.65

490,762.65
389,559.73
101,202.92
(Paid on May 26,
1999, OR No.
251560)

127,080

439,431.65

439,431.65
335,549.80
103,881.85
(Paid on May 26,
1999, OR No.
251560)
2,020,637.20
PhP1,970,150.25
PhP2,020,637.20
PhP50,486.95

Total
1,815,552.43
1,970,150.25
Total Amount Of Bills To Be Paid By The Customer
Total Amount Paid By The Customer
Difference (Still bein~ verified with payments if already credited to the customer)

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 8 of 28
15.

Thus, MERALCO prayed that the complaints filed by Mr.


Chan be dismissed for lack of merit and that then ERB
recognize the adjusted billings assessed and rendered for
the periods September 11, 1998 to October 11, 1998,
October 12, 1998 to November 11, 1998 and November
11, 1998 to December 11, 1998.

Upon the filing of Mr. Chan's "Letter-Complaint" on May 26,


1999, several conferences were held between him and MERALCO
but no amicable settlement was reached. Thus, the initial hearing
was scheduled on September 18, 2000.
During the September 18, 2000 pre-hearing conference, Mr.
Chan and MERALCO failed to appear despite due notice. In view
thereof, said hearing was reset to October 16, 2000.
At the October 16, 2000 pre-hearing conference, Mr. Chan and
MERALCO explored the possibility of arriving at a settlement.
On February 15, 2001, Mr. Chan filed an "Amended Complaint"
and a "Motion to Admit Amended Complaint".
At the. continuation of the pre-hearing conference on February
23, 2001, MERALCO did not interpose any objection to the admission
of the amended complaint. However, it moved that it be allowed to
file its comment thereon. In view thereof, Mr. Chan's motion to admit
his amended complaint and MERALCO's motion to file comment
thereon were granted.
On June 1, 2001, Mr. Chan filed a "Manifestation".
On June
Counterclaim" .

4,

2001,

MERALCO

filed

its

"Answer

with

During the June 5, 2001 pre-hearing conference, Mr. Chan and


MERALCO discussed the manner by which the latter computed the
differential billings subject of the complaints.
Thereafter, they
mutually agreed that in order for Mr. Chan to fully understand the
basis and manner of the said computations, MERALCO should
present its billing officer and the meter reader at the next hearing for
further explanation and clarification. ~

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 9 of 28
At the continuation of the pre-hearing conference on June 21,
2001, MERALCO presented Ms. Conchita Bolos from. its Power
Billing Department, who explained the basis used in the computation
of Mr. Chan's differential billings. Thereafter, Mr. Chan moved for a
reconsideration of the said computations and requested that the
same be based on the ice plant's consumptions for the previous
months up to the period in question. MERALCO, on the other hand,
agreed to present its engineer at the next hearing to enlighten Mr.
Chan with regard to reactive power, to present his billing history,
detailed computation of his differential billings and his re-billings as
well as to verify the name of MERALCO's personnel who conducted
the meter reading on his meter.
At the July 10, 2001 pre-hearing conference, MERALCO
presented Engr. Edgar B. Caras, who explained the basis for the
computation of Mr. Chan's differential billings. On the other hand, Mr.
Chan reiterated his allegation that his meter was removed since
August 1998. Said allegation was denied by MERALCO.
In view of Mr. Chan and MERALCO's failure to settle the case
amicably, a formal hearing was set on August 10, 2001.
During the August 10, 2001 hearing, Mr. Chan testified as
witness. In the course of his testimony, he identified and caused the
markings of his documentary evidence.
Thereafter, MERALCO lengthily cross-examined the witness.
On several dates, series of hearings were conducted wherein
Mr. Chan and MERALCO were consistently reminded to explore the
possibility of amicable settlement.
During the April 25, 2002 hearing, MERALCO concluded its
cross-examination on Mr. Chan.

'l

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 10 of 28
.
At the May 13, 2002 hearing, Ms. Chan was presented as
witness to corroborate Mr. Chan's testimony relative to the
inspections
conducted
by several personnel
of MERALCO.
MERALCO objected to the presentation of the said witness on the
ground that she was being presented to testify on alleged matters
which were not included in the amended complaint. Nevertheless,
the Commission allowed Ms. Chan to testify subject to the issuance
of a ruling on the matter.
In connection therewith, MERALCO
manifested its continuing objection to the presentation of the said
witness and declined to conduct its cross-examination until after the
Commission has ruled on its objection.
On May 22, 2002, the Commission issued an Order denying
MERALCO's objection during the May 13, 2002 hearing for lack of
merit.
During the October 7, 2002 hearing, Mr. Chan and MERALCO
moved for the deferment of the hearing to allow the parties to discuss
the possibility of an amicable settlement.
Several hearings were held on March 6 and 10, 2003 and April
3, 2003, but no amicable settlement was reached.
On May 29, 2003,
Evidence".

Mr. Chan filed

his "Formal

Offer of

On June 27, 2003, MERALCO filed its "Comment to Formal


Offer with Manifestation".
At the continuation of the hearing on October 7, 2003,
MERALCO presented its first witness, Ms. Bolos. In the course of her
direct testimony, several documents were identified and duly marked
as Exhibits "1" to "3-H".
The said witness was lengthily cross-examined by Mr. Chan
during the November 5 and 25, 2003 and December 10, 2003
hearings.
At the June 10, 2004 hearing, MERALCO presented its second
witness, Mr. Bernard Valderrama.
In the course of his direct
testimony, several documents were presented, identified and duly
marked as Exhibits "4" to "7-A"A

;:;

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 11 of 28
During the July 28, 2004 hearing, only Mr. Chan appeared. As
a result of the unexplained absence of MERALCO, he moved that the
direct testimony as well as the documents identified by Mr.
Valderrama be stricken from the records. Said motion was noted.
At the continuation of the hearing on September 21, 2004
where Mr. Chan was supposed to cross-examine Mr. Valderrama, he
asked for the original bill that the witness agreed to bring with him to
the hearing.
However, said witness gave a different set of
documents.
As a result, Mr. Chan moved that the testimony of said witness
and the documents he identified during his direct testimony be
expunged from the records.
On the other hand, MERALCO
requested that it be given a period of five (5) days within which to file
its comment thereon. Said request was granted.
At the continuation of the hearing on October 27, 2004,
MERALCO manifested that it would no longer present any witness
and that it filed its comment on the motion to strike out Mr.
Valderrama's testimony from the records. Upon learning of such fact,
Mr. Chan moved that the said comment be stricken from the records
and be considered as mere scrap of paper considering that the same
was filed beyond the five (5)-day period granted by the Commission
during the September 21, 2004 hearing.
On even date, MERALCO filed its "Comment to Motion to
Strike-Out Testimony of Witness Bernard Valderrama".
On November 2, 2004, the Commission issued an Order
striking out from the records the. comment belatedly filed by
MERALCO.
On November 16, 2004, Mr. Chan filed a "Manifestation
Motion".

and

On November 19, 2004, MERALCO filed a "Motion


Reconsideration of the Order Dated November 2,2004".

for

On December 9, 2004, Mr. Chan filed his "Comment/Opposition

to Motionfor ReconSideratio~

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14, 2015
Page 12 of 28
On October 26, 2005, the Commission issued an Order striking
out from the records MERALCO's comments to the motion to strike
testimony of Mr. Valderrama as well as its Exhibits "4", "4-A" , "5", "5A', "6", "6-A', "7" and "7-A" and the portion of the said witness'
testimony pertaining to the documents generated from its Customer
Management System.
In the same Order, MERALCO was directed to submit its formal
offer of evidence within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof.
On February 6, 2006, MERALCO filed a "Partial Motion for
Reconsideration of the Order Dated October 26, 2005",
On March 9, 2006, Mr. Chan filed his "Comment/Opposition (To
Respondent's Partial Motion for Reconsideration Dated February 6,
2006)".
On March 1, 2007 and October 2, 2007, Mr. Chan filed two (2)
separate motions to resolve the complaints.
On June 16, 2010, the Commission issued an Order setting the
case for a conference on June 28, 2010 to afford the parties ample
opportunity to ventilate and argue their respective positions before
the Commission takes any action thereon.
During the June 28, 2010 conference, Mr. Chan and
MERALCO maintained their respective arguments. Despite several
directives to settle their dispute amicably, the same remained futile.
On May 2, 2011, the Commission issued an Order denying
MERALCO's "Partial Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Dated
October 26, 2005" for lack of merit.
In the same Order, MERALCO was directed anew to submit its
formal offer of evidence within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof.
On July 22, 2011, MERALCO filed a "Manifestation as to Filing
of Certiorari" and a "Request to Defer Filing of Formal Offer of
Exhibits".
On August
10, 2011, Mr. Chan filed his
Opposition/Objection (To Request to Defer Filing of EXhibi

"Vigore s

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 13 of 28

On September 5, 2011, MERALCO filed a "Manifestation


Withdrawing Intention to File Certiorari with Formal Offer of Exhibits".
On October 3, 2011, Mr. Chan filed his "Comment/Objection
Respondent's Offer of Evidence".

to

On January 23, 2013, the Commission issued an Order


directing MERALCO to submit, within five (5) days from receipt
thereof, certified true copies of Ms. Chan's Electric Bills (Service
Identification No. 800633901-9) for the periods July 10, 1995 to
December 12, 1995, July 10, 1996 to December 12, 1996, July 10,
1997 to December 12, 1997, and April 10, 1998 to December 12,
1998.
Relative thereto, on March 6, 2013, MERALCO submitted its
"Compliance" .
On May 5, 2014, the Commission issued another Order
directing MERALCO to submit, within five (5) days from receipt
thereof, certified true copies of Ms. Chan's Meter Readings (Service
Identification No. 800633901-9) for the period April 10, 1997 to April
12, 2000, pursuant to Article 2.11.2 (General Information on
Metering) of the Amended Distribution Services and Open Access
Rules (DSOAR).
On May 16, 2014, MERALCO submitted its "Compliance".
The Commission hereby admits the formal offers of evidence
and exhibits respectively filed by Mr. Chan and MERALCO, for being
relevant and material in the evaluationof the comPlai~

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 14 of 28

DISCUSSION
With the admission that MERALCO consistently billed Mr. Chan
with a monthly energy consumption of 165,240 kWh for the periods
August 11, 1998 to September 11,1998, September 11, 1998 to
October 12, 1998, and October 12, 1998 to November 11, 19983
without actual meter reading, and MERALCO's new kWh meter was
defectively installed and its meter reading was used for the period
November 20 to 26, 19984, and the determination that Mr. Chan fully
and excessively paid under protest his electricity bills for the disputed
periods, the primordial issue that has to be resolved is whether Mr.
Chan is entitled to a total refund of PhP2, 086,479. 45.
Undeniably, Mr. Chan consumed electricity when he operated
his ice plant during those periods~ sans actual meter reading.
However, the Commission is convinced that Mr. Chan must not be
made liable to pay for electricity which he did not actually consume
since the operation of an ice plant is seasonal, particularly, during the
months of the disputed billing periods wherein the production of ice is
low.
Thus, every person who through an act of performance by
another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of
something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground,
shall return the same to him5.
It bears stressing that the metering facility of the ice plant
(Industrial Customers) involves two (2) kiloWatt-hour (kWh) meters.
The said installation is the most technically accepted design before
the advent of electronic multi-functional kWh meter.

4'

.~

3
4

Page 8, Item 4.6, MERALCO's "Answer with Counterclaim"


Page 11, Item 4.13, MERALCO's "Answer with Counterclaim"
Article 22, Civil Code of the Philippines

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 15 of 28
One of the kWh meters (kWh1) installed in the subject
establishment is intended to monitor the monthly energy consumption
and demand of the customer while the other one (kWh2), with phaseshifting transformers, is intended to monitor the monthly power factor
of the customer. The monthly energy consumption is determined
directly through the kWh1 meter readings while the power factor is
computed accordingly using the general formulae shown below. The
computation requires RkVAh reading, which is retrieved from the
kWh2 meter, and the energy consumption (kWh readings), which is
monitored by the kWh1 meter.

Formula 1

Qr = (2 x qr) - Pr

-----

~3

I Formula 2 I pf = cos [ tan-1

(~)]

Where:
Qr is the total reactive energy or the total kVARh consumption
Pr is the total active energy or the total kWh consumption which
was based on the difference of the present reading from the
previous reading of the kV\fh1 meter

qr is the RkVAh consumption

which was based on the


difference of the present reading from the previous reading of
the kWh2 meter
pf is the power factor of the load
On November 16, 1998, Mr. Chan discovered that one of his
kWh meters was missing and immediately reported the same to
MERALCO.
This discovery happened when he noticed that his
monthly energy consumption was consistently pegged at 165,240
kWh on his electricity bills for three (3) consecutive months,
particularly, the billing periods of August 11, 1998 to September 11,
1998, September 11, 1998 to October 12, 1998. and October 12,
1998 to November 11, 1998. Confused with such billing statements,
he investigated the matter which eventually led to the discovery of the
said missing meter. He concluded that MERALCO billed him based

on assumedreading~

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 16 of 28

The missing meter is the kWh1 meter which monitors and


reflects the monthly energy consumption of Mr. Chan. He manifested
that the charges imposed by MERALCO, which was based on
estimated energy consumption, is unacceptable considering that the
ice plant's production decreased during those periods and the fact
that the estimated energy consumption was higher than his average
monthly consumption.
On November 20, 1998, MERALCO installed a new kWh meter.
Incidentally, on November 26, 1998, it was discovered that the
installation of the new kWh meter was defective.
On even date,
MERALCO made the necessary adjustments to rectify the installation
defects.
Despite Mr. Chan's protest, he still paid the corresponding
billing charges to MERALCO in order to prevent disconnection.
Shown below is the summary of his payments:

Period
August 11, 1998
September 11, 1998
October 12, 1998
October 12, 1998
November 11, 1998
November 11, 1998

to
to
to
to
to
to
Total

September 11, 1998


October 12, 1998
November 11, 1998
November 11, 1998
December 11, 1998
December 11, 1998

Estimated
Consumption
(kWh)
165,240.00
165,240.00
165,240.00
127,080.00
622,800.00

Amount
(PhP)
541,877.85
548,656.05
389,559.73
101,202.55
335,549.80
103,881.85
2,020,727.83

Noteworthy to mention is that the incident happened prior to the


effectivity of the Magna Carta for Residential Electricity Consumers
and the DSOAR. Thus, the applicable provision is that specified in
ERB Resolution No. 95-21 (The Standard Rules and Regulations
Governing the Operation of Electric Power Services) wherein Section
43 Paragraph 2 of the said Resolution provides that:
.

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 17 of 28
"x x x. In the event of stoppage or the failure of any
meter to register the full amount of energy consumed, the
customer shall be billed for such period on an estimated
consumption based upon his average use of energy for
the immediately preceding six-month period of like use or
the registration of a check meter subject to the
approval of the Board, except when the utility and the
customer do not agree on such bill, in which case,
the Board shall resolve the same." (Emphasis
Supplied)
MERALCO submitted two (2) data records of Mr. Chan's
monthly consumption, namely: the Meter Reading Report and the
Billing Record6, as summarized in the table below.
It can be
observed that there is a discrepancy in the data presented in both
reports, particularly, the period of September 11, 1998 to November
11, 1998. The discrepancy bolstered the claim of Mr. Chan that the
kWh1 meter was already missing considering that there was no
available data in the MERALCO Meter Reading Report during the
said period.
The integrity of the data in the MERALCO Billing Record is
questionable considering that the kWh 1 meter was already missing
during the said period. It can also be noticed on the said record that
the RkVAh consumption, retrieved from kWh2 meter, manifested
negative reading (after several over-readings) which is improbable
considering that there was no report submitted that the said meter
was found to be defective.
In fact, the said meter was used
continuously even after replacement of the missing kWh1 meter. This
means that the meter readings used by MERALCO during the period
in question were mere estima

MERALCO's "Compliance" filed on May 16, 2014

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14, 2015
Page 18 of 28
Table 1. Summary of the Submitted MERALCO Records

No.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Reading
Date

01/10/97
02/11/97
03/11/97
04/11/97
05/12/97
06/11/97
07111/97
08/12/97
09/11/97
10/13/97
11/12/97
12/11/97
01/12/98
02/11/98
03/12/98
04/13/98
05/11/98
06/11/98
07/10/98
08/11/98
09/11/98
10/12/98
11/11/98
* 11/20/98
** 11/25/98
12/11/98

MERALCO Meter Reading Report


kWh1 meter
kWh2 meter (RkVAh)
Difference
Demand
Readings
Difference
(kWh)
(kW)

Readings
(kWh)

1140
1909
2564
3363
4422
5530
6556
7696
8695
9914
10377
10916
11661
12391
13260
14249
15222
16350
17454
18826
20203

769
655
799
1,059
1,108
1,026
1,140
999
1,219
463
539
745
730
869
989
973
1,128
1,104
1,372
1,377

5
95
578

Note

.
90
483

2.26
2.12
2.12
2.16
2.00
2.07
2.11
1.99
1.99
1.99
1.96
2.16
2.15
2.14
2.12
2.07
2.12
2.13
2.23
2.20
2.20

9643
10120
10541
11033
11633
12415
13112
13976
14858
15943
16345
16851
17449
18059
18813
19686
20542
21532
22496
23702
24920

2.00

25662
25692
26056

.
-

MERALCO Billing Record


kWh1 meter (kWh)
kWh2 meter (RkVAh)
Readings

477
421
492
600
782
697
864
882
1,085
402
506
598
610
754
873
856
990
964
1,206
1,218

30
364

Difference

11661
12391
13260
14249
15222
16350
17454
18826
20203
21580
22957
5
95
578

Readings

.
.
730
869
989
973
1,128
1,104
1,372
1,377
1,377
1,377

90
483

Difference

17449
18059
18813
19686
20542
21532
22496
23702
24920
26138
27356
25664
25692
26056

a. Highlighted rows have no data integrity


b. * Replaced the missing kWh1 meter with a new one
c. ** Resolved the new but defective kWh meter

The data in MERALCO's Billing Record also supported the


assumption that it consistently charged Mr. Chan with mere estimated
energy consumption for the period of September 11, 1998 to October
12, 1998. MERALCO must have been aware of the missing meter
during its meter reading for the period of October 12, 1998. However,
instead of replacing the missing meter, it opted to continuously
charge Mr. Chan, in the next two (2) successive billing periods, with
estimated energy consumption.
In fact, MERALCO acknowledged
that the meter was lost some time during the said period when the
actual readings in Mr. Chan's billing statements were not indicated.
MERALCO should have addressed the problem immediately and not
waited for any complaint or report from the customers regarding its

facilitiesor any irregUlariti~

.
610
754
873
856
990
964
1,206
1,218
1,218
1,218
(1,692)
28
364

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 19 of 28
There was evident negligence on the part of MERALCO
considering that it did not replace the missing meter when it
conducted its regular monthly meter reading. Had it addressed the
matter immediately, the unregistered consumption should have been
one billing cycle only and the disputed unregistered energy
consumption should have been limited. Thus, it may be fair enough
that the disputed unregistered consumption should be based on the
lowest monthly energy consumption within three (3) months upon
replacing the missing kiloWatt-hour (kWh) meter considering that the
prolonged period of unregistered consumption is not due to the fault
of Mr. Chan.
Nevertheless, the energy consumption or the reading of kWh1
meter could be determined using the registered consumption
retrieved from kWh2 meter.
The determination of the power factor is correlated and
dependent on the energy readings from the kWh1 meter based on the
formula previously discussed.
Considering that kWh1 is already
missing, the Commission formulated an alternative solution to resolve
the appropriate energy consumption of the disputed periods using the
other available meter (kWh2 meter). The RkVAh readings from the
kWh2 meter can be used as reference or check meter considering the
relationship of the two (2) meters and that it is also the optimal data
that can be used to resolve the issue. The said method also
coincides with the above emphasized provision of ERB Resolution
No. 95-21 as well as an essential basis in determining the veracity of
Mr. Chan's claim that there is a reduction of the ice plant's operation
during the disputed period.
Using the data from MERALCO's Meter Reading Report, the
Commission
simulated the total energy consumptions
(kWh
consumptions) of Mr. Chan during the disputed period by. using the
lowest/worst power factor (simulation 1) and the average power factor
(simulation 2) of the seven (7)-historical months prior to the said
disputed period. The total energy consumptions for simulations 1 and
2 are 320,014.57 kWh and 323,679.71 kWh, respectively.
The
analyses sequentially involve the determination of the power factor
for each month prior to the disputed periods [four (4) months] and the
determination of the total energy consumption using the kVARh
readings retrieved from the kWh2 meter for the period of August 11,
1998 to December 11, 1998. These are the readings that were
verified accurate and unquestioned.
The details of the technical
analyses are shown in Annex "A" of this Decision.

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 20 of 28
The basic principle of the above analyses is that the active
energy (kWh) or PT consumed is directly proportional with the
reactive energy (kVARh) or the QT consumed provided that power
factor is constant. An increase in the reactive energy consumption
QT (it is more accurate to say that the power factor is more or less
constant) shall also increase the active energy consumption PT, and
vice versa.
By adopting the lowest/worst power factor (simulation 1) with an
energy consumption of 320,014.57 kWh, it was determined that
MERALCO had excessively billed Mr. Chan for the entire disputed
months by 302,785.43 kWh. MERALCO excessively billed Mr. Chan
with an estimated total energy consumption of 622,800.00 kWh and
made
him pay under protest the corresponding
bill of
PhP2,020,727.83. Mr. Chan is therefore, rightfully entitled to a refund
from MERALCO.
The amount to be refunded was calculated by determining the
correct billing charges of Mr. Chan during the disputed period. The
billing charges were then based on the computed energy
consumption using simulation 1 and the maximum demand (kW)
consumption.
Based on the computed monthly energy (kWh)
consumption [the duration (hours per month) and the load factor
which was indicated in the billing charges], the Commission was able
to determine the monthly maximum demand (kW) consumption of
132.08 kW, to wit:

Energy (kWh)
time (hour/month)
Load Factor (%)

Demand

80,003.64 kWh
720 hours
84.13%

I Maximum Demand

Maximum

Maximum

Demand

. 132.08

kW

The computation was also based on the rate prevailing during


the disputed period. A summary of the computed billing charges are
shown in Annex liB" of this Decision.
Amount Paid, PhP
Less: A roved Billin
Difference, PhP

2,020,727.83
1,069,411.87
951,315.96

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 21 of 28

With the approval of the Billing Adjustment


and the
determination of the actual amount to be refunded, the Commission is
now constrained to resolve the incidental issue of whether Mr. Chan
is entitled to a cost of money for the entire period which MERALCO
erroneously withheld his money.
The Commission believes that, having already fully and
excessively paid his electricity bills for the September 11, 1998 to
November 26, 1998 billing periods, Mr. Chan already incurred an
opportunity cost of the money he used to advance and pay his
electricity bills. The applicable rate to determine Mr. Chan's legal
interest rate should be six percent (6%) per annum, as embodied in
Article 2209 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, to wit:
"If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of
money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for
damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall
be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the
absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six
percent per annum.
JJ

The said six percent (6%) interest rate is more in point


considering the nature of the obligation in favor of Mr. Chan, which is
to indemnify him in full for the costs he incurred. The six percent
(6%) legal interest rate shall be reckoned from the time of judicial or
extrajudicial demand which, in this case commenced from the time
letter-complaint was filed on May 26, 1999. This is in consonance
with the ruling of the Supreme Court in the classic case of Eastern
Shipping Lines, Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals7, wherein it was
held, that:
"x x x. With regard particularly to an award of
interest in the concept of actual and compensatory
damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accrual
thereof, is imposed, as follows:
1.

_______
7

When the obligation is breached, and it


consists in the payment of a sum of money,
i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the
interest due should be that which may have
b_e_en_
stipulatedin

234 seRA 78 (1994)

writing.Furthermore'd
{/

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 22 of 28
interest due shall itself earn legal interest from
the time it is judicially demanded. In the
absence of stipulation, the rate of interest
shalt be 12% per annum to be computed from
default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial
demand under and subject to the provisions of
Article 1169 of the Civil Code.
2.

When an obligation, not constituting a loan


or forbearance of money. is breached, an
interest on the amount of damages
awarded may be imposed at the discretion
of the court at the rate of 6% per annum.
No interest, however, shall be adjudged on
unliquidated claims or damages except when
or until the demand can be established with
reasonable certainty. Accordingly. where the
demand is established with reasonable
certainty, the interest shall begin to run
from the time the claim is made judicially
or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code) but
when such certainty cannot be so reasonably
established at the time the demand is made,
the interest shall begin to run only from the
date the judgment of the court is made (at
which time the quantification of damages may
be deemed
to have been reasonably
ascertained).
The actual base for the
computation of legal interest shall, in any
case, be on the amount finally adjudged.
(Emphasis supplied)

3.

When the judgment of the court awarding a


sum of money becomes final and executory,
the rate of legal interest, whether the case
falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2,
above, shall be 12% per annum from such
finality until its satisfaction, this interim period
being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a
forbearance of credit." ~

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 23 of 28
Summarized below is the breakdown of the total amount to be
refunded by MERALCO to Mr. Chan:
Amount Paid, PhP
Less: A roved Billin
Difference, PhP
Plus: Legal Interest, PhP

2,020,727.83
1,069,411.87
951,315.96
913,263.32

I Total Amount to be Refunded, PhP


In computing the total amount
Commission used the following formula:
A=Px(1

of

11,864,579.28

PhP1,864,579.28,

the

+rt)

Where:

A
P

r
t

=
=

=
=

Total Accrued Amount (Principal + Interest)


Principal Amount
Interest Rate per Year
Time Period Involved in Months or Years

And Where:

r
t

=
=

PhP951,315.96
6% per annum
16 years

Thus:

A
A

PhP951,315.96 x (1 + (0.06 x 16))


PhP1,864,579.28

The total amount accrued (principal plus interest), from a simple


interest on the principal amount of PhP951,315.96 at the rate of six
percent (6%) per year for sixteen (16) years, is PhP1 ,864,579.28.
Allowing Mr. Chan to recover the principal amount of
PhP951 ,315.96 and an interest thereon of PhP913,263.32 are purely
reimbursements for the use of his money by MERALCO when the
latterfailed to refund hi~

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 24 of 28

This authority of the Commission to impose interest for the use


of money emanates from its so-called incidental powers.
As
discussed by the Supreme Court in C. T. Torres Enterprises,
Incorporated vs. The Hon. Romeo J. Hibionada, Efren Diongon, and
Pleasantville Development Corporation8, it was held that:
'The argument that only courts of justice can
adjudicate claims resoluble under the provisions of the
Civil Code is out of step with ..the fast-changing times.
There are hundreds of administrative bodies now
performing this function by virtue of a valid authorization
from the legislature. This quasi-judicial function, as it is
called, is exercised by them as an incident of the principal
power entrusted to them of regulating certain activities
falling under their particular expertise.
In the Solid Homes case for example the Court
affirmed the competence of the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board to award damages although this is an
essentially judicial power exercisable ordinarily only by
the courts of justice. This departure from the traditional
allocation of governmental
powers is justified
by
expediency, or the need of the government to respond
swiftly and competently to the pressing problems of the
modern world."
Further, no statute can be enacted that can provide all the
details involved in its application. There is always an omission that
may not meet a particular situation. What is thought, at the time of
enactment, to be an all-embracing legislation may be inadequate to
provide for the unfolding events of the future. So-called gaps in the
law develop as the law is enforced. One of the rules of statutory
construction used to fill in the gap is the doctrine of necessary
implication. The doctrine states that what is implied in a statute is as
much a part thereof as that which is expressed. Every statute is
understood, by implication, to contain all such provisions as may be
necessary to effectuate its object and purpose, or to make effective
rights, powers, privileges or jurisdiction which it grants, including all
such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and
logically inferred from its terms. The principle is expressed in the
maxim, Ex necessitate legis or from the necessity of the law. And
every statutory grant of power, right or privilege is deemed to include
8

G.R. No. 80916,November9, 199~

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 25 of 28
all incidental power, right or privilege. This is so because the greater
includes the lesser, expressed in the maxim, in eo plus sit, simper
inest et minus. 9
Thus, when an administrative agency or body is conferred
quasi-judicial functions, all controversies relating to the subject matter
pertaining to its specialization are deemed to be included within its
jurisdiction since the law does not sanction a split of jurisdiction.1o
Finally, it bears stressing that, MERALCO, as a public utility
imbued with public interest, is expected to discharge its functions with
utmost care and diligence. The utmost care and diligence required of
MERALCO necessitates such great degree of prudence on its part, and
failure to exercise the diligence required means that MERALCO was at fault
and negligent in the performance of its obligation.11
Prudence dictates that, MERALCO, taking into consideration
the technical skills and expertise of its personnel, should have easily
noticed the absence of a meter reading when it prepared its
assessment for Mr. Chan's September 11, 1998 to October 12, 1998
electric bill.
Instead of calling the attention of Mr. Chan and
conducting the necessary inspection and/or investigation within the
premises of the ice plant upon knowledge of such irregularity, it opted
to bill Mr. Chan using the last recorded energy consumption reading
for the immediately preceding billing period. Worse, it applied the
same flawed procedure in its assessment for Mr. Chan's October 12,
1998 to November 11, 1998 electric bill using again the last recorded
energy consumption reading and without even taking the necessary
measures of rectifying the irregularities in its meter readings.
It is not
liabilities is to
the necessary
are stipulated
9

remiss
provide
line or
by the

to emphasize that one of an electric utility's


and maintain in proper operative condition
service connections, transformers (when same
conditions of the contract between the parties

"Statutory Construction" by Ruben E. Agpalo, 2009 ed., pp. 254-255 citing In


re Dick, 38 Phil. 41 (1918); City of Manila vs. Gomez, GR. No. L-37251,
August 31, 1981, 107 SCRA 98; Escribano vs. avila, GR. No. L-30375,
September 12, 1978, 85 SCRA 245 (1978), also Go Chico vs. Martinez, 45
Phil. 256 (1923); Gatchalian VS. COMELEC, GR. No. L-32560, October 22,
1970, 35 SCRA 435 (1970); People VS. Uy Jui Pio, 102 Phil. 679 (1957), and
Chua VS. Civil SeNice Commission, 206 SCRA 65 (1992), quoting Agpalo,
Statutory Construction, pp. 118-119 (1986 ed.), People VS. Aquino, 83 Phil.
614 (1949)

Metropolitan Cebu Water District VS. Mactan Rock Industries, Inc., G.R. No.
172438, July 4,2012
11 MERALCO VS. Ramoy et aI., G.R. No. 158911, March 4, 20~
10

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 26 of 28
thereto), meters and other apparatus which may be required for
the proper measurement of and protection to its service.12
Again, considering the technical skills and expertise involved in
the installation of kWh meters, MERALCO is expected to ensure that
the same is properly installed. Unfort.unately, such was not the case
in the subject complaints. MERALCO should have employed utmost
diligence necessary to warrant that the newly installed kWh meter in
Mr. Chan's ice plant is operating under normal condition as any
defect, either in the meter or installation thereof, cannot easily be
detected by Mr. Chan, more so, by an ordinary consumer.
What is unfathomable is that, despite Mr. Chan having
excessively paid his electricity bills for the disputed billing periods,
MERALCO imposed threats of service disconnection
for its
subsequent billing adjustments for the same billing periods. The
foregoing circumstances are clear manifestations that MERALCO
acted with malice and bad faith in its dealings with Mr. Chan, which
the Commission cannot tolerate.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby
rendered finding the Respondent
Manila Electric Company
(MERALCO) guilty of excessively billing the Complainant Mr. William
L. Chan during the periods September 11, 1998 to October 12, 1998,
October 12, 1998 to November 11, 1998 and November 20 to 26,
1998.
Accordingly, MERALCO is hereby directed to REFUND to Mr.
Chan, within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof, the total amount of
One Million Eight Hundred Sixty-Four Thousand Five Hundred
Seventy-Nine
Pesos
and
Twenty-Eight
Centavos
(PhP1,864,579.28) representing the difference between the amount
equivalent to the approved billing adjustment and the amount that Mr.
Chan paid under protest during the disputed periods, inclusive of a
legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum and computed
for a period of sixteen (16) years.
Further, MERALCO is hereby held liable for negligence in the

conductof its businessof distributionof electricityto Mr. Ch~

12

3rd paragraph, Section 45, ERB Resolution No. 95-21

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14,2015
Page 27 of 28

Thus, a penalty of One Hundred


Thousand
Pesos
(PhP100,000.00) is hereby imposed against it pursuant to Section 5,
Article 11/of Resolution NO.3, Series of 2009 on the Guidelines to
Govern the Imposition of Administrative Sanctions in the Forms of
Fines and Penalties pursuant to Section 46 of Republic Act No. 9136,
otherwise known as the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001
or the EPIRA13. MERALCO is directed to REMIT the said amount,
either in cash or in check, in the name of the Energy Regulatory
Commission (ERC), within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.
Pasig City, September 14, 2015.

JOSE

V;;E'NTE

B~SZZ~
Chairman

ALF~ioN

G~~Iit.

Commissioner

commiSSione~

JOSEFINA PAT I
A. MAGPALE-ASIRIT
Co missioner

13

1SI and 2na Violation

:ERC--~-F-' \\
Office afthe

'..

Chairman

Lc2015-004-02030 '_'
. __ .

ONIMO D. STA. ANA


Commissioner

Section 5. x x x. Any person who has been found to have committed a


violation of any provision of the Act and its IRR, the Philippine Grid and
Distribution Codes (PGDC), rules, regulations, orders, resolutions and other
laws the implementation and enforcement of which are delegated to the ERC,
x x x., shall be subject to the following sanctions:

No. of Violation

YAP-TARUC

:J

Basic Amount
of Penalty
PhP100,OOO.OO

Additional Penalty Shall be


Imposed for Any Willful
Delay in the
Implementation
x x x.

ERC Case No. 2001-743 (ERB Case No. 2000-154)


DECISION/September 14, 2015
Page 28 of 28
Copy Furnished:
1. Mr. William Chan
Complainant
No. 537 Arnaiz Avenue, Pasay City .
2. Heffron Esguerra Dy and De Jesus Law Offices
Counsel for the Complainant
Unit 706, Tycoon Center,
Pearl Drive, Pasig City
3. Manila Electric Company (MERALCO)
Respondent
Lopez Building
MERALCO Compound
Orligas Avenue, Pasig

c~

ANNEXA
SUMMARY OF DATA AND DISPUTED ENERGY CONSUMPTION COMPUTATION

No Data Integrity
I

1 12-Jan-1998
Actual Meter
Readings
C

onsump Ion

1 Meter 1 IActive

Energy (KWh) 1

1 Meter 2 Iq-reading

(RKVAh)

12-Mar-1998

1 11-Feb-1998

13-Apr-1998

Notes:

1 ll-Sep-1998

14249

15222

16350

17454

188261

202031

174491

18059

18813

19686

20542

21532

22496

237021

249201

989.00 1

973.00 1

873.00 1

856.00 1

with mulitplier

of 120 (x120)

1
1

730.00 1

869.00

610.00 1

754.00

I
I

87,600.00

104,280.00

118,680.00

116,760.00

73,200.00

90,480.00

104,760.00

102,720.00

1,104.00

1,372.00

1,377.00

990.00 1

964.00

1,206.00

1,218.00

1,128.00

135,360.00

with mulitplier

1
(RKVAh)

ll-Au!l-1998

13260

Energy (KWh) 1

Meter 2 Iq-reading

10-Jul-1998

12391

Energy (KWh) 1
.
I Meter 2 Iq-readmg (RKVAh)
I

Actual
Consumption

ll-Jun-1998

116611

1 Meter 1 IActive

Meter 1 IActive

l1-May-1998

132,480.00

ll-Dec-1998

1 15-Mar-1999
1

260561

28041

I
1,136.00

direct

164,640.00

165,240.00

419,392.00

144,720.00

146,160.00

136,320.00

1,985.00

reading

of 120 (x120)

118,800.00

115,680.00

238,200.00

1) New meter was installed replacing the missing Meter 1 on Nov. 20, 1998 however, said new meter was found defective on Nov. 26, 1998, thus, integrity of KWh data during said period is in question;
2) The new meter replacing Meter 1 is direct reading or it does not require any multiplier;
3) Meter 2 was continuosly
4) - consumotion

used and data was recorded even after replacing Meter 1; and

based on MERALCO's

etimates.

1 12-Jan-1998
Reactive

Energy
1
Power Factor I pf (%)1
Computation

for

Power Factor

1 11-Feb-1998
1

33,948.20

Total Active Energy Consumption

12-Mar-1998

44,271.22

93.24%1

92.05%1

1 13-Apr-1998

1 11-May-1998

52,446.50
91.47%1

(KWh) for the period of Jan 12, 1998 to Aug 11, 1998

Total Reactive Energy Consumption

(KVARh) for the period of Jan 12, 1998 to Aug 11, 1998

51,199.42
91.58%

1 l1-Jun-1998

59,028.29

859,800.00

370,035.33

1:

ILowest Power Factor for the period of Jan 12, 1998 to Aug 11, 1998

91.47%1

2:

IAvraae. Power Factor for the period of Jan 12, 1998 to Aua 11, 1998

91.85%1

~ctual

a-readina

(RKVAh)

~ctual

q-reading

wi

mull. (x120) - (RKVAh)

ll-Aug-1998
23,702
2,844,240.00

~ctual Total q-reading (Aug 11, 1998 to Dec 11, 1998)


Lowest Power Factor (Jan 12, 1998 to Aug 11, 199811

I 11-5ep-1998

72,053.31

73,369.67

91.61%1

26,056
3,126,720.00
282,480.00
91.47%

(Aug 11, 1998 to Dec 11, 1998)

320,014.57

Monthly KWh Consumption

(Aug 11, 1998 to Dec 11, 1998)

80,003.64
4

KWh consumption
of the disputed
period using the
average power
factor of the entire
year

~ctual

a-read ina (RKVAh)


q-reading

11-Aug-1998

23,702
2,844,240.00

~ctual Total q-reading (Aug 11, 1998 to Dec 11, 1998)


~ve. Power Factor (Jan 12, 1998 to Aug 11, 1998)

15-Mar-1999

wi mull. (x120) - (RKVAh)

I
~ctual

ll-Dec-1998

91.40%1

SIMULATION 2:

11-Dec-1998

4-month KWh Consumption

No. of Disputed Months (Aug. 11, 1998 to Dec. 11,1998)

57,088.39

I l1-Au!l-1998

91.84%1

Simulation

10-Jul-1998

91.66%1

Simulation

SIMULATION 1:
KWh consumption
of the disputed
period using the
lowest power
factor of the entire
year

11-Dec-1998
26,056
3,126,720.00
282,480.00
91.85%

~-month KWh Consumption

(Aug 11, 1998 to Dec 11, 1998)

323,679.71

Monthly KWh Consumption

(Aug 11, 1998 to Dec 11, 1998)

80,919.93

No. of Disputed Months (Aug. 11, 1998 to Dec. 11,1998)

Page 12 of 13

ANNEX 8
SUMMARY OF THE APPROVED CHARGES

Simulation 1

~
I

W
-...

...

...Co
Gl

rn

..
0

...
...
til
::::I

Monthly Energy (KWh)


Monthly Demand (KW)

Basic Charges
Energy (KWh)
Demand (KW)
Power Factor Adjustment
Power Factor
Currency Adjustment
PPA

...
...0

..
0

...
...

...Co
Gl

Basic Charges
Energy (KWh)
Demand (KW)
Power Factor Adjustment
Power Factor
Currency Adjustment
PPA

rn

...
...
:>

..
0

...

...0

Basic Charaes
Energy (KWh)
Demand (KW)
Power Factor Adjustment
Power Factor
Currency Adjustment
PPA

...
...
U
Gl

..
...
...
0

:>
0

I
Basic Charges
Energy (KWh)
Demand (KW)
Power Factor Adjustment
Power Factor
Currency Adjustment
PPA

91.47%1

W
,....-

...
...

Amount
153,606.99
29,056.89
(3,507.15)

...Co
Gl

rn

.....
0

4.24%
0.957

...

7,596.25
76,563.49
I

263,316.46

Amount
153,606.99
29,056.89
(3,507.15)

Rates
1.92
220.00
-1.92%
4.60%
0.990

266,601.55

...0

..
...
...
0

...Co

Gl

...
...
:>

..

8,205.38
83,043.78

269,087.97

1,069,411.871

...0

U
Gl

.....
0

...
:>
0

I IConsumotion
I I
80,919.93 x
133.59 x
184,755.93 x
91.85%
181,208.62 x
80,919.93 x

I
Basic Charges
Energy (KWh)
Demand (KW)
Power Factor Adjustment
Power Factor
Currency Adjustment
PPA

Basic CharQes
Energy (KWh)
Demand (KW)
Power Factor Adjustment
Power Factor
Currency Adjustment
PPA

IIConsumotion
I I
80,919.93 x
133.59 x
184,755.93 x
91.85%
181,208.62 x
80,919.93 x

I
Basic Charges
Energy (KWh)
Demand (KW)
Power Factor Adiustment
Power Factor
Currency Adjustment
PPA

II

133.591

II

91.85%1
Amount
155,366.26
29,389.67
(3,547.31)
7,683.25
77,440.37

Rates
1.92
220.00
-1.92%

8,335.60
80,110.73

Rates
1.92
220.00
-1.92%

8,299.35
83,994.88

Rates
1.92
220.00
-3.12%

Grand Total Amount

269,654.94
Amount
155,366.26
29,389.67
(3,547.31)

4.58%
1.038

Sub-total Amount

266,332.23
Amount
155,366.26
29,389.67
(3,547.31)

4.60%
0.990

Sub.total Amount

IIConsumption
I I
80,919.93 x
133.59 x
184,755.93 x
91.85%
178,991.55 x
80,919.93 x

84.13%1

4.24%
0.957

Sub.total Amount

80,919.931

II

Rates
1.92
220.00
-1.92%

Sub-total Amount

IIConsumption
I I
80,919.93 x
133.59 x
184755.93 x
91.85%
181,208.62 x
80,919.93 x

Basic Charaes
Energy (KWh)
Demand (KW)
Power Factor Adjustment
Power Factor
Currency Adjustment
PPA

...
...

6,919.32
85,203.88

3.91%
1.065

Grand Total Amount

270,405.89
Amount
153,606.99
29,056.89
(5,699.11)

Rates
1.92
220.00
-3.12%

Sub-total Amount

...

ILoad Factor
I
.
MaXimumDemand

Monthly Power Factor (%)

rn

4.58%
1.038

Monthly Demand (KW)


I

II

Monthly Energy (KWh)

<{

...

Amount
153,606.99
29,056.89
(3,507.15)

Rates
1.92
220.00
-1.92%

til
::::I

8,241.21
79,203.61

Sub.total Amount

IIConsumotion
I I
80,003.64 x
132.08 x
182,663.88 x
91.47%
176,964.77 x
80,003.64 x

II

132.081

Simulation 2

84.13%1

Rates
1.92
220.00
-1.92%

Sub-total Amount

IIConsumotion
I I
80,003.64 x
132.08 x
182,663.88 x
91.47%
179,156.73 x
80,003.64 x

80,003.64

II

II

Sub-total Amount

IIConsumption
I I
80,003.64 x
132.08 X
182,663.88 x
91.47%
179,156.73 x
80,003.64 X
I

,....-

IIConsumption
I I
80,003.64 X
132.08 X
182,663.88 x
91.47%
179,156.73 x
80,003.64 x

<{

ILoad Factor
I
.
MaXimum Demand

Monthly Power Factor-(%)

II

273,502.86

Amount
155,366.26
29,389.67
(5,764.39)

3.91%
1.065

6,998.57
86,179.72

272,169.84

1,081,659.87

Page 13 of 13