Spouses ANTONIO and LORNA QUISUMBING vs.

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

(MERALCO)
FACTS Spouses Antonio and Lorna Quisumbing are owners of a house and lot located at
Greenmeadows Avenue, Quezon City. oth also engaged in the e!port of furniture. "he
defendant#appellant $anila %lectric Company&s '$%(ALC)* inspectors headed by %mmanuel
)rlino conducted an inspection on the said avenue. "he house of the Quisumbings were
inspected by the defendant after observing a standard operated procedure. After the inspection,
it was found out that the meter has been tampered. "he results were relayed to the plaintiff&s
secretary who shared the information to the owners. "he owners were advised that defendant
will bring the meter for laboratory testing and if the meter did turn out to be tampered, electrical
services of the plaintiffs will be disconnected. After an hour, the inspectors informed the plaintiffs
that meted had been indeed tampered and they need to pay +,-.,.-/.0, so that their electric
would not be disconnected. "he electric service was immediately reconnected. Still, the plaintiffs
filed a complaint for damages with prayer for the issuance of writ of preliminary mandatory
in1unction and also alleging the defendant of acted maliciously and disconnecting the electricity
without due process and without regard with the plaintiff&s rights, feelings, peace of mind, social
and business reputation .
ISSUE2 3hether or not the petitioner and the respondent are entitled to damages.
!EL"2 "he petitioners are entitled to moral damages although in a reduced amount only,
e!emplary damages, and attorney&s fees. $oral damages are recovered when the rights of
individuals, including the right against deprivation of property without due process of law, are
violated. %!emplary damages, on the other hand, are imposed by way of e!ample or correction
for the public good in addition to moral, temperate, li4uidated or compensatory damages. 5n this
case, the re4uisites of law must be complied with before the disconnection of electrical supply
can be effected. "he petitioners& claim for actual damages, however, was not granted due to
failure to provide proof. )n the other hand, the petitioners were ordered to pay the respondent
the billing differential of +,67,778.69. "he respondents were able to present sufficient evidences
regarding the amount differential.