Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ANGELINA NG,
Complainant,
I.
6 Supra note 1 at p. 2.
7 Ibid. at p. 3.
8 Complaint dated October 14, 2004.
9 Supra note 2 at p. 3.
10 Ibid.
2
ERC Case No. 2004-387CC
Decision /7 October 2014
Page 3 of 8
II.
Complainant violated
R.A. No. 7832
Complainant avers that she did not violate R.A. No. 7832.
Respondent's service inspectors falsely accused her of illegal connection of
electricity but could not present any sufficient evidence showing the illegal
disconnection. She was made to affix her signature on the MFIR and on a
blank Demand Letter/Notice of Disconnection. Further, she was subjected
to harassment and coercion when the respondent's personnel returned to
the subject premises on 29 October 2004 to disconnect her electric service.
Lastly, she insists that she is innocent of any illegal electrical connection as
it was Anastacio G. Baguinat who confessed to using the same.
11 Photographs dated October 14, 2004, attached as Annexes "1" to "g" to the Respondent's Reply Paper
dated October 2,2006.
12 Computation of S.1. Bills, attached as Annexes "A" to "A-S" to the Respondent's Position Paper dated
July 10, 2006.
13 Affidavit of Rogelio C. Bacay, attached as Annex "3" to the Respondent's Position Paper dated July 10,
2006.
3
J
ERC Case No. 2004-387CC
Decision /7 October 2014
Page 4 of 8
xxx
xxx
14 Affidavit of Anastacio Baguinat dated May 25, 2006, attached as Annex "E" to the Complainant's
Position Paper dated June 23, 2006.
4
ERC Case No. 2004-387CC
Decision /7 October 2014
Page 5 of 8
DISCONTINUANCE OF SERVICE:
15Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) v. Spouses Chua and Paqueo, G.R. No. 160422, July 5, 2010.
16Metering Facilities Inspection Report No. 51632, attached as Annex "B" to the Complainant's Position
Paper dated June 23, 2006.
5
ERC Case No. 2004-387CC
Decision /7 October 2014
Page 6 of 8
xxx
For purposes of this Act, "differential billing" shall refer to the amount to be charged to the
person concerned for the unbilled electricity illegally consumed by him as determined through
the use of methodologies which utilize, among others, as basis for determining the amount of
monthly electric consumption in kilowatt-hours to be billed, either: (a) the highest recorded
monthly consumption within the five-year billing period preceding the time of the discovery, (b)
the estimated monthly consumption as per the report of load inspection conducted
during the time of discovery xxx
6
ERC Case No. 2004-387CC
Decision / 7 October 2014
Page 7 of 8
Considering the attending facts and case records, the most equitable
method in determining the amount of differential bill for the unregistered
consumption is through the use of the recorded highest monthly
consumption within the five-year billing period preceding the time of the
discovery20 and at the current rate of electricity at the time of apprehension.
= PhP48,841.83
Where:
20 Ibid.
21 Per billing history attached to respondent's 10 July 2006 Position Paper and marked as Annex "A" to
"A-S". The latest bill date per said annex is up to 2 Sept. 2004, Oct. 2004 bill is not included. That's the
reason why the affected period is limited only to 37 months instead of the correct 38 months.
22 As approved by the ERC.
23 Supra note 21.
7
------~ ------'"""'""II!_--~---------------------,
SO ORDERED.
7 October 2014.
h A~(~
NAIDA G. CRUZ-DUCUT
Chairperson rJ
0, .(;c~ (V.._
GL~VICTORIA CYVAP-TARUC
Commissioner
Copy Furnished:
2. Angelina Ng
No. 24 Rd. 5 Pildera II
NAIA, Pasay City