Republic of the Philippines ENERGY REGULATORY COMME Sian: San Miguel Avenue, Pasig City RODOLFO DELA — CRUZ, ‘Complainant, - versus - ERC CASE NO. 2004-186 MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Respondent. DOCKETED i DECISION For resolution is the verified complaint filed on June 30, 2004 by Rodolfo Dela Cruz against the Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) for its allegation that he had a two line jumper, and for its imposition of the differential billing in the amount of One Hundred Ninety-Eight Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Three Pesos and 65/100 (PhP 198,323.65). THE CASE On June 22, 2004, the respondent's Ortigas personnel inspected the residence of complainant and allegedly found two-line jumper wires illegally tapped at drip loop near the weather cap of one of the three (3) service entrance wires leading to his premises. Records reveaied that the complainant has three (3) watthour meters servicing his residence, two (2) are in his name and one is in the name of a certain Bernardo Dela Cruz. As a consequence of the said inspection, complainant was charged a differential billing on all three (3) meters iess the amount pertaining to his regular bills. In his complaint, complainant admitted the presence of jumper wires but alleged that the same were installed, without his consent, by Mr. Virgilio DayritERC CASE NO. 2004-186 Order/2-10-07 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Dayrit, in his sworn affidavit marked as Annex “A”, said that in order to repair the complainant's car, he installed a jumper wire on the connection point before the meter for purposes of connecting the welding machine and that said welding machine was used for a period of only one (1) week Several conferences were conducted to afford the parties the opportunity to reach an amicable settlement. However, no such settlement was reached. On November 2, 2004, some ERC personnel conducted an ocular inspection at complainant's residence, in the presence of both parties. According to the said personnel, a portion of the subject drip loop where the jumper wires were illegally tapped were found to have been heavily taped which can be an indication that it was previously used as tapping points. More than a meter away from the said drip loop were two (2) wires (5.5mm* stranded), which were cut allegedly by the respondent's inspectors at the time of apprehension, leading to the welding machine with no rating plate. In the course of the said inspection, the complainant showed the ERC personnel around the house pointing to the parts of his residence being served by the three (3) meters and claimed that his electrical wiring is embedded in the concrete slab, walls and flooring which made it impossible for him to steal electricity by installing a jumper. Respondent, however, countered that the electrical outlets are also possible points of illegal connections. The ERC personnel further observed that complainant's three (3) watthour meters were totally enclosed by wooden partitions and securely locked such that respondent's meter readers had to ask permission from the complainant before they were allowed access thereto.(hy) A/ ERC CASE NO. 2004-186 Order/2-10-07 Page 3 of 5 On January 21, 2005, complainant submitted his position paper and reiterated the allegations contained in his complaint. He further stated that his power bills after the apprehension were much lesser compared to those during the affected periods. ‘During the June 23, 2005 hearing, both parties agreed to be bound by the Commission's Rules on Summary Procedure. On July 4, 2005, respondent submitted its Memorandum’ wherein it averred that its inspectors found the meter and metering installation of all three (3) accounts with a “two line jumper tapped at driploop”, a device for the pilferage of electricity. However, its inspectors were allegedly prevented by the occupants of the house from tracing where the jumper wires were connected. Thus, its inspectors resorted to taking several photographs of complainant's residence, the location of the jumper wires and where they were leading to. It reiterated that the removal of the pilfering device (jumper wires) was in accordance with Republic Act No. 7832 ISSUE Whether or not the assessed differential billing has factual and legal basis. DISCUSSION The records of the case disclosed that the differential billing was computed based on the illegal use of electricity on all three (3) meters servicing complainant's residence. However, it is clear from the pictures appended to respondent's Memorandum that only one (1) out of the three (3) service entrances was utilized as tapping point of the jumper wires. In faet, the report / a,ERC CASE NO. 2004-186 Order/2-10-07 Page 4 of 5 prepared by the ERC personnel stated that the drip loop wires near the weather cap of one of the service entrances (Meter SN 99882053 with Company No. 33YZN82053) were heavily taped indicating it was previously used as tapping points. There was no other proof presented to show otherwise. Thus, there is reasonable ground to believe that only ane (1) meter was involved and affected by the jumper wires Complainant admitted that the jumper wire was used just to energize the welding machine. He pointed out that if said jumper wire had been used other than to energize the welding machine, his monthly consumption should have been significantly lower. The fact that the meters in issue registered steady monthly consumptions already contradicted the allegations of respondent that electrical outlets are also possible points of illegal connections. There being sufficient proof, which respondent was not able to contradict, that only one (1) out of the three (3) service drops was utilized as tapping point for the illegal connection and that the jumper wires were directly connected to the welding machine for a period of one (1) week, the Commission is inclined to adopt the said period in the computation of the differential billing. The Commission pegged the rating of the welding machine at the maximum of three hundred (300) amperes and at the maximum utilization of four (4) hours a day (based on actual practice) or a total of one thousand nine hundred thirty two Kilowatthours (1,932 kwhs). Thus, complainant should only be made to pay the differential billing corresponding to one (1) week usage or 1,932 kilowatthours using the rate at the time of the apprehension (June 22, 2004).ERC CASE NO. 2004-186 Order/2-10-07 Page 5 of 5 However, in addition to the unregistered consumption, respondent is entitled to collect surcharges from complainant equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) of his current bill on meter bearing SN 99882053 with Company No. 33YZN82053, pursuant to Section 8 (a) of R.A. 7832. WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, complainant is hereby directed to pay respondent the amount of only Twelve Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Three Pesos and Eighty-Two Centavos (PhP12,633.82) as differential billing, inclusive of surcharges. SO ORDERED. Pasig City, October 2, 2007. RODOLFO B. ALBANO, JR. Chairman _ wal a cad ee Commissioner, Comfrissioner MARIA TE! R. CASTANEDA. JOSH C. REYES Comipissioner Cofnmissioner Kenner WY Copy furnished 1 Rodolfo dela Cruz 1150 Bambi Ave., Tahada Subd, Gen. T. de Leon, Valezuela City 2. Ally. Emesto G. Gasis ‘Counsel for Complainant Rm. 203 Madrigal Bldg Escolta, Manila 3. Atty. Angelo G. Medina ‘Counsel for Respondent MERALCO Ortigas Ave., Pasig City