FACTS:

The case involves the claim for damages of petitioner Raul H. Sesbreño based on abuse of rights. Sesbreño alleged that a violation of contract (VOC) inspection team sent by VECO conducted an unreasonable search in his residential premises while checking his electric meter. The respondents in the case include VECO's President, General Manager, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Vice-President, Treasurer, other Members of the Board of Directors, and an Assistant Treasurer. The VOC inspectors employed by VECO were accompanied by a member of the constabulary during their inspection. The RTC dismissed the claim, finding Sesbreño's witnesses inconsistent and not credible, while accepting the respondents' evidence.

Additionally, the Visayan Electric Company (VECO) Inspection Team found the electric meter in the residence of Sesbreño turned upside down to prevent accurate registering of electricity consumption. As a result, the team detached and replaced the meter. Sesbreño claimed that the team forcibly entered his house through threats and intimidation and that they themselves turned the meter upside down to incriminate him for theft of electricity. However, the team and Sesbreño were not acquainted prior to the incident, making it unlikely for the team to fabricate charges against him.

Sesbreño did not present Chuchie Garcia, who allegedly was forced to sign two documents by the team, leaving her allegation unsupported. The RTC found Sesbreño guilty of theft of electricity based on the testimonies of the inspection team members and their supervisor. Sesbreño appealed, but the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, stating that Sesbreño's account was implausible and far-fetched. The CA also noted that Sesbreño was the only one who complained about the actions of the VOC Team, and there was no evidence that the team committed similar acts on other customers. The CA found it difficult to believe that the team would antagonize Sesbreño without any prior motive or bad blood between them. The court viewed Sesbreño's charges as fabricated to hide his alleged cheating and theft of electricity. The testimonies of Sesbreño's witnesses were considered unreliable and inconsistent, and Sesbreño's failure to present Chuchie Garcia further weakened his claim.

ISSUES:

1. Was Sesbreño entitled to recover damages for abuse of rights?

2. Did the VOS team conduct an unreasonable search without a warrant?

3. Whether the search conducted by the VOC inspectors violated the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

4. Whether the entry of the VOC team into the main premises constituted a violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

5. Whether there was sufficient showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial and appellate courts.

6. Whether the trial judge's refusal to inhibit from the case violated the petitioner's right to due process.

7. Whether the writer of the decision in the CA should have inhibited from participating in the resolution of the motion for reconsideration.

RULING:

1. The appeal has no merit.

2. The VOS team did not conduct an unreasonable search without a warrant.

3. The search conducted by the VOC inspectors did not violate the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The constitutional guaranty against unlawful searches and seizures is intended as a restraint against the Government and its agents tasked with law enforcement. It only applies when the search is made upon the request of law enforcers and a warrant must generally be first secured. In this case, the search was made at the behest of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purposes, without the intervention of police authorities. Therefore, the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of a private individual is involved.

4. The entry of the VOC team into the main premises did not constitute a violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Balicha, who was part of the team, was authorized to assist and escort the team during its routine inspection through a mission order. Since Balicha was not an agent of the State, his presence and participation did not make the inspection a search by an agent of the State. Therefore, the entry did not constitute a violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

5. The Court found that there was no sufficient showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial and appellate courts, and thus, no basis for the unusual review of the factual findings.

6. The Court held that the trial judge's refusal to inhibit from the case did not violate the petitioner's right to due process. The trial judge rendered the judgment in compliance with the instruction of the Executive Judge, whose exercise of administrative authority should be respected.

7. The Court found that there was nothing wrong with the writer of the decision in the CA refusing to inhibit from the resolution of the motion for reconsideration. Suspicion of bias and prejudice were not enough grounds for inhibition.

PRINCIPLES:

• Paragraph 9 of the metered service contract allows VECO and its authorized employees or representatives to enter the consumer's premises at all reasonable hours for the purpose of inspecting, installing, reading, removing, testing, replacing, or otherwise disposing of its property.

• The authority granted by paragraph 9 extended to the entire VOC team and not just the specific employees of VECO.

• The entry and inspection of the garage where the meter was installed were authorized under paragraph 9.

• Balicha, although not an employee of VECO, was a necessary part of the team to ensure the personal security of the VECO employees and was considered an authorized representative.

• The entry into the main premises of the residence was not covered by paragraph 9, but it did not necessarily require a search warrant since it was not an unreasonable search and seizure as guaranteed by Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

• Constitutional guaranty against unlawful searches and seizures is intended as a restraint against the Government and its agents tasked with law enforcement.

• The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals.

• Liability for damages may arise from the abuse of rights, performed without prudence or in bad faith.

• Article 19 of the Civil Code sets the standards to be observed in the exercise of one's rights and in the performance of one's duties, namely: (a) to act with justice; (b) to give everyone his due; and (c) to observe honesty and good faith.

• The resolution of whether the principle of abuse of rights is invoked depends on the circumstances of each case.

• There must be a sufficient showing of grave abuse of discretion to warrant the unusual review of factual findings.

• The exercise of administrative authority on matters of inhibition should be respected.

• Suspicion of bias and prejudice alone are not enough grounds for inhibition.