|
By William B. Depasupil, Reporter
Top executives of the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco)
snubbed on Tuesday the first preliminary investigation by the
Department of Justice of a large-scale estafa case filed against the
utility by a consumer group.
The group sued for P889 million.
Lawyers for Meralco instead asked prosecutors
from the Justice department for a postponement supposedly to give
them more time to prepare their counter-affidavits. Jaime Umpa,
Cagayan de Oro Regional State Prosecutor, heads the government
lawyers.
They explained to the Umpa panel that they only
received their subpoenas on Thursday last week, also supposedly
leaving them no time to fully prepare their arguments.
Umpa granted the Meralco lawyers’ request,
giving them another 15 days to submit their consolidated
counter-affidavits and counter-arguments.
The National Association of Electricity
Consumers for Reforms filed the syndicated estafa case against the
Meralco officials over the utility’s alleged misappropriation of
at least P889 million in interests earned from meter and bill
deposits of its customers.
Charged were Manuel Lopez, Meralco chairman and
chief executive officer; Jesus Francisco, president; and all members
of Meralco’s 2006 board of directors, namely Arthur Defensor Jr.,
Gregory Domingo, Octavio Victor Espiritu, Christian Monsod, Federico
Puno, Washington Sycip, Emilio Vicens, Francisco Viray and Cesar
Virata.
Also named in the complaint were Daniel Tagaza,
executive vice president and chief financial officer; Rafael Andrada,
first vice president and treasurer; Helen de Guzman, vice president
and corporate auditor and compliance officer; Antonio Valera, vice
president and assistant comptroller; and Manolo Fernando, senior
assistant vice president and assistant treasurer.
The national consumers’ association claimed
that the P889 million had been declared by Meralco as automatic
income for its stockholders as shown in the company’s 2006
financial statements.
It said the conversion was illegal, constituting
large-scale estafa because the money is in the nature of a fund that
should have been held in trust by Meralco for its consumers because
it must be paid back to them.
“Meralco has customarily charged deposits for
meters, but this stopped in 2004 when the Energy Regulatory
Commission passed the Magna Carta for Residential Consumers,” the
group added.
“Residential consumers who subscribed prior to
1995 were declared to earn 6-percent interest and only consumers who
subscribed after 1995 were declared to earn 10-percent interest. In
2006, Meralco converted the 4-percent interest accrued from the year
1995 to 2003 to the company’s ‘interests and other income.’
The accrued interest differential translates to no less than P889
million,” it said.
Meralco officials have denied the consumers’
group allegations, saying they are ready to answer the charges in
court.
Large-scale estafa is a non-bailable offense
under the Revised Penal Code.
Meter tampering case
Meralco lost a battle before the Supreme Court.
Imputing “negligence,” the High Tribunal has
barred the utility from collecting its claim of differential billing
from a firm it accused of tampering with Meralco’s electric meter.
The court’s Third Division, in a 15-page
decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo Nacuhara,
affirmed an earlier decision by the Court of Appeals. The appellate
court had reversed the ruling of a regional trial court ordering the
defendant, Wilcon Builders Supply Inc., to pay Meralco P187,924.19
in actual damages, P10,000 in attorney’s fees and the cost of the
suit.
In its decision, the Supreme Court cited the
“Ridjo doctrine,” which principle it used in at least three
similar cases of alleged electric-meter tampering.
The Ridjo doctrine states that the public
utility has the imperative duty to make a reasonable and proper
inspection of its apparatus and equipment to ensure that they do not
malfunction.
The Supreme Court said Meralco’s failure to
discover the defect, if any, considering the length of time, amounts
to inexcusable negligence, and its failure to make the necessary
repairs and replace the defective meter installed within the
consumer’s premises limits the latter’s liability.
Meralco had argued that the Ridjo doctrine
applies only to cases when the meter is defective, not when there is
an allegation of tampering. It also contended that such claim of
negligence only served to mitigate the consumer’s liability, but
not to exempt him from paying the differential billing.
But the High Tribunal dismissed the arguments.
It said, “The rationale behind this ruling is that public
utilities should be put on notice, as a deterrent, that if they
completely disregard their duty of keeping their electric meters in
serviceable condition, they run the risk of forfeiting, by reason of
their negligence, amounts originally due from their customers.”
Records show that on January 17, 1991,
Meralco’s service inspectors conducted a routine inspection of the
electric meter installed at Wilcon’s premises. Allegedly, the
meter was found to be tampered with and did not register the correct
electric current consumed and used by respondent.
On February 20, 1991, Meralco wrote Wilcon,
informing it of the alleged tampering and further demanding the
payment of P250,565.59 representing its unregistered consumption.
Wilcon denied having tampered with the meter. It
said the increase in its electricity consumption was caused by the
installation of an air-conditioning unit on June 6, 1981. In 1985,
the unit started to break down and in 1986, it was no longer
functional, which resulted in the abrupt decrease in its
consumption.
|
