Case Digest: MERALCO vs.

Castillo
G.R. No. 182976: January 14, 2013

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), Petitioner, v. ATTY.

PABLITO M. CASTILLO, doing business under the trade name and
style of PERMANENT LIGHT MANUFACTURING ENTERPRISES
and GUIA S. CASTILLO, Respondents.

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

FACTS:

Respondents Pablito M. Castillo and Guia S. Castillo are spouses engaged

a business under the name and style of Permanent Light Manufacturing
Enterprises (Permanent Light).

After conducting an inspection of Permanent Lights electric meter, the

petitioner Manila Electric Company (Meralco) concluded that the meter
was tampered with and electric supply to Permanent Light was
immediately disconnected, without notice to respondents, for one day.
However, respondents used generators soon after the power went out to
keep the operations of Permanent Light on track.

Subsequently, Meralco assured respondents in a letter that Permanent

Lights meter has been tested and was found to be in order. In the same
letter, petitioner informed respondents that said meter was replaced anew
after it sustained a crack during testing. However, respondents requested
for a replacement meter. According to them, the meters installed by
Meralco ran faster than the one it confiscated following the disconnection.
Subsequently, Meralco installed a new electric meter at the premises of
Permanent Light.

ISSUES:

A. Whether or not the respondents are entitled to claim damages for

petitioners act of disconnecting electricity to Permanent Light.

B. Whether or not the respondents are entitled to actual damages for the
supposed overbilling by petitioner Meralco of their electric consumption
from the time the new electric meter was installed.

HELD: Petition lacks merit.

CIVIL LAW: Damages

First Issue:

In Quisumbing v. Manila Electric Company, the Court treated the

immediate disconnection of electricity without notice as a form of
deprivation of property without due process of law, which entitles the
subscriber aggrieved to moral damages. In addition to moral damages,
exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the
public good. In this case, to serve as an example - that before
disconnection of electric supply can be effected by a public utility, the
requisites of law must be complied with the Court sustained the award of
exemplary damages to respondents.

Second Issue:

Actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed, but must be duly

proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. The award is dependent upon
competent proof of the damage suffered and the actual amount thereof.
The award must be based on the evidence presented, not on the personal
knowledge of the court; and certainly not on flimsy, remote, speculative
and unsubstantial proof. Nonetheless, in the absence of competent proof
on the amount of actual damages suffered, a party is entitled to temperate
damages. Temperate or moderate damages, which are more than nominal
but less than compensatory damages, may be recovered when the court
finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot,
from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty. The amount thereof
is usually left to the discretion of the courts but the same should be
reasonable.

In this case, the Court is convinced that respondents sustained damages

from the abnormal increase in Permanent Lights electric bills after
petitioner replaced the latters meter. However, respondents failed to
establish the exact amount thereof by competent evidence. Thus,
temperate damages is awarded.

Petition is DENIED. The decision of CA is affirmed.

 NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF HER
MINOR CHILD RODERIGO NORJO VAN WILSEM v.
ERNST JOHAN
BRINKMAN VAN WILSEM
G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014, THIRD DIVISION, (Peralta,
J.)

Foreign law should not be applied when its application would

work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum.

Norma A. Del Socorro and Ernst Van Wilsem contracted marriage

in Holland. They were blessed with a son named Roderigo Norjo Van
Wilsem. Unfortunately, their marriage bond ended by virtue of a Divorce
Decree issued by the appropriate Court of Holland. Thereafter, Norma and
her son came home to the Philippines. According to Norma, Ernst made a
promise to provide monthly support to their son. However, since the
arrival of petitioner and her son in the Philippines, Ernst never gave
support to Roderigo. Norma filed a complaint against Ernst for violation
of R.A. No. 9262 for the latters unjust refusal to support his minor child
with petitioner.

The trial court dismissed the complaint since the facts charged in
the information do not constitute an offense with respect to the accused, he
being an alien.

ISSUE:

Does a foreign national have an obligation to support his minor

child under Philippine law?

RULING:

Yes, since Ernst is a citizen of Holland or the Netherlands, we

agree with the RTC that he is subject to the laws of his country, not to
Philippine law, as to whether he is obliged to give support to his child, as
well as the consequences of his failure to do so. This does not, however,
mean that Ernst is not obliged to support Normas son altogether. In
international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a
dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign law. In the present
case, Ernst hastily concludes that being a national of the Netherlands, he is
governed by such laws on the matter of provision of and capacity to
support. While Ernst pleaded the laws of the Netherlands in advancing his
position that he is not obliged to support his son, he never proved the
same. It is incumbent upon Ernst to plead and prove that the national law
of the Netherlands does not impose upon the parents the obligation to
support their child. Foreign laws do not prove themselves in our
jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of
them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved.

Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when its application

would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum.
To give justice is
the most important function of law; hence, a law, or judgment or contract
that is obviously unjust negates the fundamental principles of Conflict of
Laws. Applying the foregoing, even if the laws of the Netherlands neither
enforce a parents obligation to support his child nor penalize the non-
compliance therewith, such obligation is still duly enforceable in the
Philippines because it would be of great injustice to the child to be denied
of financial support when the latter is entitled thereto.