SpousesLimv.

CourtofAppeals
G.R.No.192615,January30,2013
J.Brion(2ndDivision)
Facts:RespondentBankofthePhilippineIslands(BPI)filedacomplaintforcollectionofasum
ofmoneyagainstthepetitioners.Theverificationandcertificationagainstforumshoppingattachedto
the complaint were signed by Francisco R. Ramos (Ramos), then BPI Assistant VicePresident and
MindanaoRegionLendingHead.
ThepetitionersmovedtodismissBPIscomplaintonthegroundof litispendentia.TheRTC
deniedthepetitionersmotiontodismissandthesubsequentmotionforreconsiderationstatingthat
thereexistsdifferentcausesofactionbetweenthetwoactions.
Thepetitionersfiledanothermotiontodismiss,thistime,onthegroundthattherehadbeena
fataldefectintheverificationandcertificationagainstforumshoppingattachedtoBPIscomplaint.
TheyarguedthattheverificationandcertificationdidnotstateordeclarethatRamoswasauthorized
byBPIsBoardofDirectorstofilethecomplaintthroughaboardresolutionmadespecificallyforthe
purpose.BPIfiledacommentonthepetitionerssecondmotiontodismiss.
BPIsubmittedacopyoftheSpecialPowerofAttorney(SPA)signedandexecutedbyRosario
JuradoBenedicto (Benedicto), the Assistant VicePresident of BPI, granting Ramos the authority to
representthebankandsigntheverificationandcertificationagainstforumshoppingonBPIsbehalf.
BPI contended that its submissions already constituted substantial compliance with the
proceduralrulesandshouldbeappliedinthiscasetofacilitateandeffectuatetheendsofsubstantial
justice.
The RTC denied the petitioners second motion to dismiss and the subsequent motion for
reconsideration.Thepetitionersassailedtheseordersofdenialinthepetitionforcertioraritheyfiled
withtheCA.
TheCA,indismissingthepetitionerscertioraripetition,ruledthattheSPAgrantingRamosthe
authoritytorepresentBPIandtosigntheverificationandcertificationagainstforumshoppingandthe
certifiedtruecopyofBPIsCorporateSecretarysCertificate,althoughbelatedlysubmitted,constituted
substantialcompliancewiththerequirementsoftheRulesofCourt.
ThepetitionersmovedtoreconsiderthesaiddecisionbuttheCAdeniedtheirmotion,hence,
thispetitionforreviewoncertiorari.
ThepetitionersarguethattheCAgravelyerredinnotfindingthattheRTChadcommitted
graveabuseofdiscretionindenyingtheirsecondmotiontodismiss.TheycontendthattheRTClacked
jurisdictionoverBPIscomplaintbecauseFranciscoR.Ramos,thebankofficerwhofiledthecomplaint
inBPIsbehalfandwhosignedtheverificationandcertificationagainstforumshopping,didnothave
theauthoritytodosoatthetimethecomplaintwasfiled.
Issue: WhethertheSpecialPowerofAttorneyandCorporateSecretarysCertificatethatBPI
belatedly submitted constituted substantial compliance with the requirements under the rules on
verificationandcertification.
Held: AcloserlookintotheSPAandtheCorporateSecretarysCertificatesubmittedbyBPI

revealsthat,atthetimethesubjectcomplaintwasfiledonJanuary26,1999,Ramosdidnothavethe
expressauthoritytofileandsigntheverificationandcertificationagainstforumshoppingattachedto
BPIscomplaint.TheSPA,whichappointedRamosand/orAtty.MateoG.DelegenciaasBPIsattorneys
infactinthecaseagainstthepetitioners,wasexecutedonlyonJuly8, 2008.EventheCorporate
SecretarysCertificatethatnamedtheofficersauthorizedbytheBPIsExecutiveCommitteetogrant
andextendaSPAtootherofficersofthebankwasexecutedonlyonFebruary21,2007.TheExecutive
Committeeispartofthebankspermanentorganizationand,inbetweenmeetingsofBPIsBoardof
Directors,possessesandexercisesallthepowersoftheboardinthemanagementanddirectionofthe
banksaffairs.
BPIs subsequent execution of the SPA, however, constituted a ratification of Ramos
unauthorizedrepresentationinthecollectioncasefiledagainstthepetitioners.Acorporationcanact
onlythroughnaturalpersonsdulyauthorizedforthepurposeorbyaspecificactofitsboardof
directors, and can also ratify the unauthorized acts of its corporate officers. The act of
ratificationisconfirmationofwhatitsagentordelegatehasdonewithoutorwithinsufficient
authority.
Wenotethat,atthetimethecomplaintagainstthepetitionerswasfiled,Ramosalsoheldthe
position of Assistant VicePresident for BPI Northern Mindanao and was then the highest official
representing the bank in the Northern Mindanao area. This position and his standing in the BPI
hierachy, to our mind, place him in a sufficiently high and authoritative position to verify the
truthfulnessandcorrectnessoftheallegationsinthesubjectcomplaint,tojustifyhisauthorityinfiling
the complaint and to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping. Whatever is
lacking, from the strictly corporate point of view, was cured when BPI subsequently (although
belatedly)issuedtheappropriateSPA.

LandBankofthePhilippinesv.HeirsofSpousesSoriano
G.R.No.178312,January30,2013
J.Bersamin(1stDivision)
Facts: TherespondentsarethechildrenofthelateSpousesJorja RigorSorianoandMagin
Soriano,theownersofthetwoparcelsoflandcoveredbyTCTs.
ThepropertiesbecamesubjecttoOperationLandTransfer(OLT)andwerevaluedbytheLand
BankandtheDepartmentofAgrarianReform(DAR)at P10,000.00/hectare.Contending,however,
thatsuchvaluationwastoolowcomparedtoexistingvaluationsofagriculturallands,therespondents
commencedanactionforjustcompensation,claimingthatthepropertieswereirrigatedlandsthat
usuallyyielded150cavansperhectareperseasonataminimumoftwoseasonsperyear.Theyasked
thatafinalvaluationofthepropertiesbepeggedatP1,800,000.00,basedonAdministrativeOrderNo.
61,Seriesof1992andRepublicActNo.6657.
LandBankdisagreed,insistingthatPresidentialDecreeNo.27andExecutiveOrderNo.228
governedthefixingofjustcompensationfortheproperties.ItprayedthatthevaluationbytheDARbe
retainedorthatavaluationbemadejudicially.
The RTC rendered judgment ordering the defendant Land Bank of the Philippines to pay
petitionerManoloGoducothetotalamountofOneMillionTwoHundredTwentySevenThousandFive
Hundred Seventy One & 10/100 (P1,227,571.10), Philippine Currency, representing the just
compensationoftheproperties.
LandBankandtherespondentsfiledseparatemotionsforreconsideration,buttheRTCdenied
theirmotions.LandBankappealedtotheCAbutthelatteraffirmedtheRTCdecision.
TheCAdeniedLandBanksmotionforreconsideration.Hence,LandBankappealedviapetition
forreviewoncertioraribeforetheSupremeCourt.
Thereafter,LandBanksubmittedtotheCourtasocalledJointManifestationandMotion(Re:
UnconditionalAcceptanceofRevaluation)datedFebruary9,2012,statingthattheapprovalbyLand
BanksresponsibleofficersoftherevaluationofthepropertiespursuanttoDARAdministrativeOrder
No. 1 dated February 18, 2010, Series of 2010, was communicated to the respondents for their
unconditionalacceptance.Itprayedthattheappealbenowresolvedonthebasisoftheacceptanceof
paymentbytherespondents.
The Court required the respondents to comment on Land Banks submission of the Joint
ManifestationandMotion(Re:UnconditionalAcceptanceofRevaluation);anddirectedthepartiesto
submittheirformalwrittenagreementwithin15daysfromnotice,
Land Bank submitted a Manifestation, informing the Court that the parties had filed by
registered mail their Joint Motion to Approve the Attached Agreement, submitting therewith their
AgreementdatedNovember29,2012.
TheCourtreceivedtheJointMotiontoApprovetheAttachedAgreementandtheAgreement
dated November 29, 2012. Thereby, the parties prayed that the Court consider and approve the
Agreement as its disposition of the petition for review on certiorari, and render its judgment in
accordancewiththetermsoftheAgreement.

Held: ThereisnoquestionthattheforegoingAgreementwasacompromisethattheparties
freelyandvoluntarilyenteredintoforthepurposeoffinallysettlingtheirdisputeinthiscase.Under
Article2028oftheCivilCode,acompromiseisacontractwherebytheparties,bymakingreciprocal
concessions,avoidalitigationorputanendtoonealreadycommenced.Accordingly,acompromiseis
eitherjudicial,iftheobjectiveistoputanendtoapendinglitigation,orextrajudicial,iftheobjectiveis
toavoidalitigation.Asacontract,acompromiseisperfectedbymutualconsent.However,ajudicial
compromise,whileimmediatelybindingbetweenthepartiesuponitsexecution,isnotexecutoryuntil
itisapprovedbythecourtandreducedtoajudgment.Thevalidityofacompromiseisdependentupon
itscompliance with therequisitesand principlesof contractsdictated by law. Also, thetermsand
conditionsofa compromisemustnotbecontrary tolaw, morals, good customs,publicpolicyand
publicorder.
AreviewofthetermsoftheAgreement,particularlyparagraph6andparagraph7,indicates
thatitisajudicialcompromisebecausethepartiesintendedittoterminatetheirpendinglitigationby
fully settling their dispute. Indeed, with the respondents thereby expressly signifying their
"unconditionalorabsoluteacceptanceandfullreceiptoftheforegoingamountsasjustcompensation
forsubjectpropertiestheFirstPartyandtheSecondPartyherebyconsiderthecasetitled"LandBankof
the Philippines v. Heirs of Spouses Jorja RigorSoriano and Magin Soriano, namely: Marivel S.
Carandang and Joseph Soriano (G.R. No. 178312) pending before the Supreme Court, closed and
terminated,"theultimateobjectiveoftheactiontodeterminejustcompensationforthelandowners
wasachieved.

SpousesGolezv.SpousesNavarro
G.R.No.192532,January30,2013
J.Reyes(1stDivision)
Facts: Spouses Ricardo and Elena Golez entered into a written agreement with respondent
Amelita Navarro, a real estate dealer, appointing her as their exclusive agent in the sale of their
propertyinMolave,ZamboangadelSur, worthsixhundredthousandpesos(P600,000.00).They
likewiseagreedthatifthepriceofthesaleexceedsP600,000.00,Amelitawillbegivenacommission
equivalentto90%oftheamountinexcessthereof.
Amelitafoundaninterestedbuyer,theChurchofJesusChristofLatterDaySaints(Mormons).
No sale between them, however, transpired because they couldnt agree on the selling price of
P1,200,000.00.Uponknowingthisfact,thepetitionerstookoverandcontinuednegotiationswiththe
MormonsrepresentativesinManila.
ThepetitionerssuccessfullysoldtheirpropertytotheMormonsfortheamountofP800,000.00.
The sale included other lots owned by the petitioners and the total purchase price amounted to
P1,300,000.00.Amelitawasneithernotifiedofthesalenorwasshegivenanycommission.Hence,
upondiscoveryofthetransaction,sheassertedherrighttobepaidhercommissionbutthepetitioners
sternlyrefused.Becauseofthis,AmelitabroughtthemattertotheOfficeoftheBarangayCaptainof
Molave.However,noamicablesettlementtookplacebetweenherandthepetitioners.
Thereafter,Amelita,togetherwithherhusbandCarlos,institutedacomplaintforcollectionof
sum of money, breach of contract and damages against the petitioners. The petitioners filed their
Answer,denyinganyliability.Thereafter,trialonthemeritsensued.
InitsDecisiondatedOctober28,1998,theRTCruledinfavoroftherespondents.Onappeal,
theCourtofAppeals(CA),initsDecisiondatedSeptember29,2006,affirmedwithmodificationsthe
RTCDecision.
ThedispositiveportionoftheCADecisionprovides:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theassaileddecisionisherebyMODIFIEDasfollows:
(1) Declaring Amelita Navarro to be entitled to the commission on the sale of appellants
propertiessubjectofthecontractofagency;
(2)Orderingappellantstopay,jointlyandseverally,toappelleestheamountofonehundred
eightythousandpesos(Php180,000.00)representingthecommissionforthesaleofappellants
propertiessubjectofthecontractofagency;and
(3)Deletingtheawardofmoraldamagesandattorneysfees.
Initsotheraspects,theappealeddecisionshallremainundisturbed.
ThematterwaselevetadviapetitionforreviewoncertioraritotheSupremeCourtbutthesame
wasdenied.
ThemotionforreconsiderationthereofwaslikewisedeniedwithfinalityonFebruary23,2009;
thustheresolutionoftheCourtbecamefinalandexecutory. Consequently,therespondentsfileda

MotionfortheIssuanceoftheWritofExecutionwhichwasgranted.
Thereafter, the respondents filed a Motion for the Judicial Determination of the Monetary
AwardssubjectforExecutionandfortheIssuanceofanAliasWritofExecution.
Acting on the motion, the RTC issued an Order explicitly providing for the amount of
P504,000.00asthetotalmonetaryaward,computedasfollows:
P180,000.00representingtheplaintiffscommissionasmodifiedbytheCourtofAppeals
P324,000.00representingtheinterestoftheunpaidcommissionattherateof12percent
per annum computed from the sale of defendants property to the Mormons Church on
November 9, 1994 until fully paid (P180,000.00 x 12% = P21,600.00 x 15 years =
P324,000.00)
Accordingly,theClerkofCourtandExOfficioSheriffissuedthesubjectAliasWritofExecution.
Thepetitionersmovedforreconsideration,mainlycontendingthatthetermsoftheorderand
thealiaswritofexecution"variedthelawofthecase"andawardedmorethanwhattheCAsjudgment
decreed.
TheRTCdeniedthepetitionersmotion,hence,apetitionforreviewoncertiorariwasfiled
beforetheSupremeCourt.
ThepetitionerscontendthattheorderofexecutionissuedbytheRTCdoesnotconformtothe
termsofthedispositiveportionoftheCAdecision,hence,invalid.Theimpositionofa12%intereston
theawardfromthesaleofdefendantspropertytotheMormonsChurchonNovember9,1994untilthe
sameisfullypaidtotheplaintiffsisnotorderedintheCAjudgmentandtheRTCcommittedanerrorin
includingitinitsorder.
Therespondents,ontheotherhand,callforthedismissalofthepetitiononthegroundsthat
the petition is "an erroneous remedy, the filing of which is outofcontext" and that its filing is
"indubitably a subterfuge, contrary to public policy and sound practice, and contemptuous in
character."
Issue:Whetherthepaymentofinterestfromthedateofsale,whennonewassodecreedinthe
modifieddecisionofthehonorablecourtofappeals,wasproper.
Held:Clearly,theRTCexceededitsauthoritywhenitinsistedonapplyingitsownconstrualof
the dispositive portion of the CA Decision when its terms are explicit and need no further
interpretation.Itwouldalsobeinequitableforthepetitionerstopayandfortherespondents,whodid
notappealtheCAdecisionorquestionedthedeletionofthe12%perannuminterest,toreceivemore
thanwhatwasawardedbytheCA.TheassailedRTCorderofexecutiondatedDecember21,2009and
thealiaswritofexecutiondatedMay17,2010are,therefore,void.Timeandagain,ithasbeenruled
thatanorderofexecutionwhichvariesthetenorofthejudgment,orforthatmatter,exceedstheterms
thereofisanullity.
Having said that, it must however be clarified that the imposition of 12% interest is still
warrantedinthecaseatbar,notfromthedateofsaleonNovember9,1994,astherespondentsinsist;
butfromthefinalityofthedecisionuptothesatisfactionofjudgmentinlinewiththedoctrinelaid

downinEasternShippingLines,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals.TheCourtnotesthatthepetitionersalso
concedethatthepaymentof12%interestfromthefinalityofjudgmentisinorderpursuanttoEastern
ShippingsLines,Inc.wheretheCourtheldthat:
"Whenanobligation,notconstitutingaloanorforbearanceofmoney,isbreached,aninterest
ontheamountofdamagesawardedmaybeimposedatthediscretionofthecourtattherateof
6%perannum.Nointerest,however,shallbeadjudgedonunliquidatedclaimsordamages
exceptwhenoruntilthedemandcanbeestablishedwithreasonablecertainty.Accordingly,
wherethedemandisestablishedwithreasonablecertainty,theinterestshallbegintorunfrom
thetimetheclaimismadejudiciallyorextrajudicially(Art.1169,CivilCode)butwhensuch
certaintycannotbesoreasonablyestablishedatthetimethedemandismade,theinterestshall
begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the
quantificationofdamagesmaybedeemedtohavebeenreasonablyascertained).Theactual
baseforthecomputationoflegalinterestshall,inanycase,beontheamountfinallyadjudged.
Whenthejudgmentofthecourtawardingasumofmoneybecomesfinalandexecutory,the
rateoflegalinterest,whetherthecasefallsunderparagraph1orparagraph2,above,shallbe
12%perannumfromsuchfinalityuntilitssatisfaction,thisinterimperiodbeingdeemedtobe
bythenanequivalenttoaforbearanceofcredit."

Peoplev.Cabungan
G.R.No.189355,January23,2013
J.DelCastillo(2ndDivision)
Facts:Appellantwaschargedwiththecrimeofrape.Aftertrial,hewasdeclaredguiltybeyond
reasonabledoubtofthecrimeofrapeandwassentencedtosufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.
TheaccusedwasfurtherorderedtopaytheoffendedpartythesumofSeventyFiveThousand
Pesos(Php75,000.00)ascivilindemnity.
AppellantsoughtreversalofhisconvictionbeforetheCA.However,theCA, affirmed,with
modifications,theRTCDecisioninthattheamountofcivilindemnitywasreducedandappellantwas
orderedtofurtherpaythevictimmoraldamages.
Stillundeterred,appellantelevatedthematterbeforetheSupremeCourt, arguingthatthe
lowercourtserredinfindinghimguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtforthecrimeofrape.
Thus,theHighCourthadtheopportunitytoreviewtheproprietyoftheawardofdamages.
Held: WeagreewiththeCAinreducingthecivilindemnityawardedbythetrialcourtfrom
P75,000.00toP50,000.00inviewofthefindingthatappellantisguiltyonlyofsimplerape.Also,we
respecttheawardofmoraldamagesmadebytheCAintheamountofP50,000.00."Moraldamagesin
rapecasesshouldbeawardedwithoutneedofshowingthatthevictimsufferedtraumaormental,
physical,andpsychologicalsufferingsconstitutingthebasisthereof."
WenotethatboththetrialcourtandtheCAfailedtoawardexemplarydamages.InPeoplev.
Tejero,weheldthat"wheneitheroneofthequalifyingcircumstancesofrelationshiporminority(for
qualifiedrapeunderArticle266BoftheRevisedPenalCode)isomittedor lacking,thatwhichis
pleaded in the Information and proved by the evidence may be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.Assuch,AAAsminoritymaybeconsideredasanaggravatingcircumstance.Whena
crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance either as qualifying or generic, an award of
exemplarydamagesisjustifiedunderArticle2230oftheNewCivilCode."Thus,conformablywiththe
aboveruling,weholdthat"AAA"isentitledto anawardofexemplarydamagesintheamountof
P30,000.00.
Inaddition,pursuanttoprevailingjurisprudence,"interestattherateof6%perannumshallbe
imposedonalldamagesawardedfromthedateofthefinalityofthisjudgmentuntilfullypaid."

Meralcov.Castillo
G.R.No.182976,January14,2013
J.Villarama,Jr.(1stDivision)
Facts:RespondentsPablitoM.CastilloandGuiaS.Castilloarespousesengagedinthebusiness
ofmanufacturingandsellingfluorescentfixtures,officesteelcabinetsandrelatedmetalfabrications
underthenameandstyleofPermanentLightManufacturingEnterprises(PermanentLight).
OnMarch2,1994,theBoardofTrusteesoftheGovernmentServiceInsuranceSystem(GSIS)
approvedtheawardtoPermanentLightofacontractforthesupplyandinstallationof1,200unitsof
lateralsteelfilingcabinetsworthP7,636,800.Immediately,PermanentLightbeganproductionofthe
steelcabinetssothatitcanobtaintheawardforthesupplyof500additionalunits.
IntheafternoonofApril19,1994,JoselitoIgnacioandPeterLegaspi,inspectorsofMeralco,
soughtpermissiontoinspectPermanentLightselectricmeter.Saidinspectionwascarriedoutinthe
presenceofMikeMalikay,anemployeeofrespondents.
The results of the inspection show that the terminal seal of Permanent Lights meter was
deformed,itsmetersealwascoveredwithfakelead,andthe100thdialpointerwasmisaligned.Onthe
basisofthesefindings,Ignacioconcludedthatthemeterwastamperedwithandelectricsupplyto
PermanentLightwasimmediatelydisconnected.ThequestionedmeterwasthentakentoMeralcos
laboratoryforverification.
BypetitionerMeralcosclaim,itsustainedlossesintheamountofP126,319.92overa24month
period, on account of Permanent Lights tampered meter. The next day, in order to secure the
reconnectionofelectricitytoPermanentLight,respondentspaidP50,000asdownpaymentonthe
differentialbilltoberenderedbyMeralco.
Thereafter,MeralcoperformedaPolyphaseMeterTest onthedisputedmeterwhereit was
foundthatsuchmeterwastampered.Thus,MeralcobilledPermanentLighttheamountofP61,709.11,
representingthelattersunregisteredelectricconsumptionfortheperiodofSeptember20,1993to
March22,1994.ItassessedrespondentsabalanceofP11,709.11,butlaterreducedsaidamountto
P5,538.20afterpetitionerallowed respondentsa10% discount ontheirtotalbill.Then, petitioner
receivedtheamountofP5,538.20asfullsettlementoftheremainingbalance.
Subsequently,respondentsreceivedanelectricbillintheamountofP38,693.53fortheperiod
ofMarch22,1994toApril21,1994.ThiswasfollowedbyanotherbillforP192,009.64coveringthe
periodfromNovember19,1993toApril21,1994.RespondentscontestedbothassessmentsinaLetter
datedOctober12,1994.Theylikewisecomplainedofasignificantincreaseintheirelectricbillssince
petitionerinstalledthereplacementmeteronApril20,1994.
Whilerespondentscontinuedtopay,allegedlyunderprotest,thesucceedingbillsofPermanent
Light,theyrefusedtopaythebillforP38,693.53.
RespondentsfiledagainstMeralcoaPetitionforInjunction,RecoveryofaSumofMoneyand
DamageswithPrayerfortheIssuanceofaTemporaryRestrainingOrder(TRO)andWritofPreliminary
Injunction.
The RTC directed the issuance of a TRO to restrain petitioner Meralco from disconnecting
electricitytoPermanentLight.TheRTC,lateron,renderedjudgmentinfavorofrespondents.Thefallo

ofsaidDecisionreads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the
petitionersandagainsttherespondentorderingthelattertopaytheformerthefollowing:
1.P1,138,898.86representingoverpaymentsmadebythepetitionersfromMay1994to
November2001;
2.P200,000.00asandformoraldamages;
3.P100,000.00asandforexemplarydamages;
4.P100,000.00asandforattorneysfees;and
5.thecostsofthissuit.
Ontheotherhand,petitionersareherebyorderedtopaytotherespondenttheamount
ofP38,693.53representingthebillingdifferential.
xxxxxxxxx.
Onappeal,theCourtofAppealsaffirmedwithmodificationtheDecisionoftheRTC.Itdeleted
theawardofP1,138,898.86infavorofrespondentsandinsteadorderedpetitionertopaytemperate
damagesintheamountofP500,000.TheCourtofAppealsheldthatpetitionerabuseditsrightwhenit
disconnectedtheelectricityofPermanentLight.
Hence,thispetitionforreviewoncertiorari.
Petitionerarguesthatrespondentsfailedtoestablishhowthedisconnectionofelectricityto
PermanentLightforonedaycompromiseditsproduction.Petitionercitesrespondentsadmissionthat
soonafterthepowerwentout,theyusedgeneratorstokeeptheoperationsofPermanentLighton
track.
PetitionerfurthernegatesbadfaithindiscontinuingservicetoPermanentLightwithoutnotice
torespondents.Itcontendsthatthe48hournoticerequirementinSection97ofRevisedGeneralOrder
No.1appliesonlytoacustomerwhofailstopaytheregularbill.Petitionerinsiststhatthediscoveryby
itsFullyPhasedInspectorsofPermanentLightstamperedmeterjustifieddisconnectionofelectricityto
thelatter.
Also, petitioner challenges the award of temperate damages to respondents for the alleged
overbilling.ItobjectstotheadmissionintoevidenceofPermanentLightsDecember29,2001electric
bill,whichrespondentsprofferedtwoyearsafterthecasewassubmittedfordecisionbythecourta
quo.PetitionerdisputesthefindingoftheRTCandtheCourtofAppealsthatrespondentsoverpaidon
PermanentLightselectricbill.Itreasonsthatthevolumeofbusinessofanyestablishmentvariesfrom
seasontoseasonsuchthatitcannotbeexpectedtoconstantlyregisterthesameelectricconsumption.
Lastly, petitioner protests the award of P500,000 in temperate damages as excessive and
unconscionable.
Issues: Whether respondents are entitled to claim for damages for petitioners act of
disconnectingelectricitytoPermanentLightonApril19,1994;andwhetherrespondentsareentitledto

actualdamagesforthesupposedoverbillingbypetitionerMeralcooftheirelectricconsumptionfrom
April20,1994toNovember28,2001.
Held:Inorderforthediscoveryofatampered,brokenorfakesealonthemetertoconstitute
primafacieevidenceofillegaluseofelectricitybythepersonwhobenefitsfromsuchillegaluse,the
discoverythereofmusthavebeenpersonallywitnessedandattestedtobyanofficerofthelaworaduly
authorizedrepresentativeoftheERB.
Citing Quisumbing v. Manila Electric Company, we reiterated the significance of this
requirementinManilaElectricCompany(MERALCO)v.Chua,thus:
Thepresenceofgovernmentagentswhomayauthorizeimmediatedisconnectionsgointothe
essenceofdueprocess.Indeed,wecannotallowrespondenttoactvirtuallyasprosecutorand
judgeinimposingthepenaltyofdisconnectionduetoallegedmetertampering.Thatwouldnot
sitwellinademocraticcountry.Afterall,Meralcoisamonopolythatderivesitspowerfromthe
government.Clothingitwithunilateralauthoritytodisconnectwouldbeequivalenttogivingit
alicensetotyrannizeitshaplesscustomers.
AbsentanyshowingthatanofficerofthelaworadulyauthorizedrepresentativeoftheERB
personallywitnessedandattestedtothediscoveryofPermanentLightstamperedelectricmeter,such
discoverydidnotconstituteprimafacieevidenceofillegaluseofelectricitythatjustifiesimmediate
disconnectionofelectricservice.
Besides,evenifthereisprimafacieevidenceofillegaluseofelectricity,Section4,RA7832
requires due notice to the person benefited before disconnection of electricity can be effected.
Specifically,Section6ofRA7832callsforpriorwrittennoticeorwarning.
Thus,evenwhentheconsumer,orsomeoneactinginhisbehalf,iscaughtinflagrantedelictoor
intheactofdoinganyoftheactsenumeratedinSection4ofRA7832,petitionermaynotimmediately
disconnect electricity without serving a written notice or warning to the owner of the house or
establishmentconcerned.
Further,Section48ofERBResolutionNo.9521expresslyprovidesfortheapplicationofthe
48hournoticeruletoSection43onPaymentofBills.However,petitionerMeralco,throughitsRevised
TermsandConditionsofService,adoptedsaidnoticerequirementwheredisconnectionofserviceis
warrantedbecause(1)theconsumerfailedtopaytheadjustedbillafterthemeterstoppedorfailedto
registerthecorrectamountofenergyconsumed,(2)orforfailuretocomplywithanyofthetermsand
conditions,(3)orincaseofortopreventfraudupontheCompany.
Considering the discovery of the tampered meter by its Fully Phased Inspectors, petitioner
MeralcocouldhavedisconnectedelectricitytoPermanentLightfornootherreasonbuttoprevent
fraud upon the Company. Therefore, under the Revised Terms and Conditions of Service visavis
Section48ofERBResolutionNo.9521,petitionerisobligedtofurnishrespondentswitha48hour
notice of disconnection. Having failed in this regard, we find basis for the award of moral and
exemplary damages in favor of respondents for the unceremonious disconnection of electricity to
PermanentLight.
Moraldamagesareawardedtocompensatetheclaimantforphysicalsuffering,mentalanguish,
fright,seriousanxiety,besmirchedreputation,woundedfeelings,moralshock,socialhumiliationand
similarinjury.


Jurisprudence hasestablishedthe following requisitesfortheawardofmoraldamages:(1)
there is an injury whether physical, mental or psychological, which was clearly sustained by the
claimant;(2)thereisaculpableactoromissionfactuallyestablished;(3)thewrongfulactoromission
ofthedefendantistheproximatecauseoftheinjurysustainedbytheclaimant;and(4)theawardof
damagesispredicatedonanyofthecasesstatedinArticle2219oftheCivilCode.
Pertinenttothecaseathand,Article32oftheCivilCodeprovidesfortheawardofmoral
damagesincaseswheretherightsofindividuals,includingtherightagainstdeprivationofproperty
withoutdueprocessoflaw,areviolated.35