FACTS:

The case involves a dispute between Meralco and TEC, TPC, and Ultra Corporation. Meralco accused TEC and TPC of tampering with their meter installations, resulting in a sudden drop in electricity consumption. Meralco conducted an inspection and found alleged tampering. It sent a notice to TEC and TPC, but there was a delay in sending the results of the inspection. As a result, TEC and TPC paid P1,000,000 to avoid disconnection of their electric supply. TEC and TPC sought reimbursement and filed a case against Meralco, claiming actual damages, moral damages, corrective damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The trial court ruled in favor of TEC and TPC, finding insufficient evidence of tampering and holding Meralco liable for damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, with a modification of the amount of damages and interest. Meralco appealed to the Supreme Court. The issues raised in the petition include whether there was deliberate tampering of the meter installations, whether Meralco is entitled to differential billing, and whether TEC and TPC should be held responsible for the acts of Ultra.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not TEC tampered with the electric meters installed at its DCIM and NS buildings.

2. If so, whether or not it is liable for the differential billing as computed by petitioner.

3. Whether or not petitioner was justified in disconnecting the electric power supply in TEC's DCIM building.

4. Whether or not there was tampering of the electric meters in TEC's DCIM and NS buildings.

5. Whether or not petitioner is entitled to differential billing and immediate disconnection.

6. Whether or not petitioner abused the remedies granted to it under P.D. 401 and Revised General Order No. 1 by depriving TEC of electrical services without prior notice.

7. Whether or not respondent TEC is entitled to the return of the amounts it paid under protest.

8. Whether the petitioner should be held liable for the return of the amount received.

9. Whether the amount awarded for rental reimbursement is excessive.

10. Whether the award of exemplary damages and attorney's fees is proper.

11. Whether the award of moral damages is warranted.

RULING:

1. The Court refused to revisit the factual findings of the lower courts, stating that the Court is not a trier of facts and may not re-examine and weigh anew the respective evidence of the parties. Factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on this Court.

2. The Court noted that there was no drastic difference in TEC's electric consumption before and after the inspection, casting a doubt on petitioner's claim of meter-tampering. Therefore, the Court did not find TEC liable for the differential billing computed by petitioner.

3. The Court did not make a ruling on whether or not petitioner was justified in disconnecting the electric power supply in TEC's DCIM building.

4. The alleged tampering of the electric meters in TEC's DCIM and NS buildings was not proven, and therefore, petitioner's claim of differential billing was correctly denied.

5. Petitioner is not entitled to differential billing and immediate disconnection.

6. Petitioner abused the remedies granted to it under P.D. 401 and Revised General Order No. 1 by depriving TEC of electrical services without prior notice.

7. Respondent TEC is entitled to the return of the amounts it paid under protest.

8. The petitioner alone should be held liable for the return of the amount received since it was the one who received it.

9. The amount awarded for rental reimbursement is excessive. Instead, a total sum of P150,000.00 is deemed proper.

10. The award of exemplary damages and attorney's fees is upheld since they serve as an example that the requisites of law must be complied with before a disconnection of electrical supply can be effected by a public utility.

11. The award of moral damages is deleted since the corporation failed to present evidence that its reputation was debased as a result of the petitioner's acts.

PRINCIPLES:

• Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law, not of fact, may be raised before the Court.

• Factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on the Supreme Court.

• Tampering of the electric meters affects the registration of actual electric energy consumption, not the supply of electricity.

• The burden of proving tampering of electric meters lies with the party alleging tampering.

• The court may deny a claim for differential billing if there is no drastic difference in the consumer's electric consumption before and after the alleged tampering.

• Negligence in performing duties constitutes negligence and may result in the forfeiture of amounts due from customers.

• Electric companies may include provisions for differential billing and immediate disconnection in their service contracts, subject to the requirement of a 48-hour written notice of disconnection.

• Actual damages are compensation for an injury that will put the injured party in the position where it was before the injury.

• Public utilities must comply with the requisites of law before disconnecting electrical supply.

• Exemplary damages are awarded to serve as an example or correction for the public good.

• A corporation is not entitled to moral damages unless it can prove that its reputation has been debased as a result of the defendant's acts.