Meralco Crap

[CtrlAltDel]

bro, kahit sino man eh maiinis sa ginawa ng Meralco na 'yan.

pero marami na yatang case na ganyan na na-settle naman ng maayos. if I were you, I would take vicoyski's advice and talk with the branch manager, mr vargas AND name-drop the person who refer you... vicoy. Kilala 'yan sa Meralco, 'di ba boss vicoy? heheh.

as regards ERC's action, you can also consult them. just bear in mind that electric meters have two seals: one Meralco seal and one ERC seal. As far as I know, both entities test, calibrate, and seal them before use. What I'm saying is that the mistake was likely unintentional. you can also take matters to court.

whatever course of action you take, Meralco should explain to you in detail how the mistake and how the computed corrected billing came to be. They should accept installment payments. That's the least they could do after such a big inconvenience to you.

good luck!

[Altis6453]

nabanggit sa thread na to about the same nature ng case... and sa supreme court ruling (which i think is fair naman)... na prove kasi na nagamit yung kuryente.. na prove din na walang binayad, beyond what was initially charged by meralco... and since it will be very difficult to determine the time kung kailan talaga nagsimulang mag malfunction yung metro, ang ginawa na lang ng court is that pinagbayad yung last 3 months (which i think is mas definite)... in a way eh meet halfway na lang ang meralco and yung consumer....

regarding burden of proof on this case, may proof ang meralco na hindi mo binayaran YUNG PORTION NA HINDI NILA SININGIL (kasi nga as they claim, may problem pala yung metro)... ang magandang defense dito is if you can prove na walang problem yung meter, at ang ipapalit nilang meter ay hindi naka calibrate, or naka calibrate na bumasa ng mas mataas na reading compared to the one that they claimed na "may sira".... then you can show na walang basis yung pag singil nila sa inyo now... the problem with this defense is that most likely ay nasa posession na ito ng meralco at mahihirapan na tayong ma retrieve iyon in its original condition (from when it was still functioning as your meter) ...

another way to approach this case.. is by using the mentioned supreme court case in this thread... ganun na din ang formula na gamitin nyo... this would definitely be much much less than the amount they are charging you now... the good thing with this approach is that you have a solid basis sa offer mo.. and they can not refute this basis since supreme court case na nga (na i'm not sure kung on appeal pa or with finality na yung order)...

It's a matter of proving that you really used that amount of electricity. As a consumer, you can only rely on the correctness and accuracy of the electric meter installed in your premises. If the electric meter suffers a defect and that defect was not corrected in due time by MERALCO, it should not prejudice the consumer. Furthermore, assuming that there was a portion of electricity consumed but not paid by the consumer, I think MERALCO already recovered their costs because they charge consumers system loss charge. It may lead to a case of double compensation on their part.

[vicvic]

was just thinkin'

Just another example:

You received a hundred thousand dollars sent by one of your relatives abroad. Ecstatic about the fortune, you right away spent most of it buying cars, properties and other things you craved for. One day, the bank tells you that they had made a mistake. Your relative had sent you only a hundred dollars and a glitch in the computer had turned it to the above amount. You finally called your relative and you found out that indeed, he sent you just a hundred bucks.

Question:
Is it right to return the money to the bank?

Remember, what is legal is not always right. We tend to do something and want to make everything turn on our side and we take advantage on some refuge which will benefit our selfish interest. That's what the leaders of this country and many people do. If someone is not proven having done a crime, then he is innocent.

I am not on meralco's side. I'm just advocating for a good change in our society, and that should come from within ourselves.

If we can do the right thing though it hurts in some other way, then do it. If everyone else do the same, what do you think will happen to our world.

GoodLuck to everyone.

[Satio]

Imho, it's meralcos fault for giving you a defective meter. Mabibigla talaga at magagalit talaga ako. I paid what I owe you so why do I have to pay you more? It might be one sided but you should not pay for someone else's mistake.

Go to your lawyer so you know where you stand. Deym presyo na ayn ng second hand tsikot.... good luck!

I agree with him.. paying them due to thier incompetence?

[oldblue]

ang mahirap kasi sa case na yan, kung ilalaban mo sa Meralco baka magkatampuhan pa kayo at lalo pa kayo magkaproblema like occassional brownouts sa bahay ninyo. yes, tama yun sinabi dito na kung PLDT ka, it's so easy to switch to Bayantel or Digitel. but with Meralco, san ka pa? kung pangangatawanan mo prinsipyo mo, be ready to go back to the stone age ika nga ...

my question is hindi ba man lang kayo nagtaka kumbakit ang baba ng singil ng kuryente nyo?

[vicoyski]

... I would take vicoyski's advice and talk with the branch manager, mr vargas AND name-drop the person who refer you... vicoy. Kilala 'yan sa Meralco, 'di ba boss vicoy? heheh.

Kilala ba ko 'don? Hehehe... Oo nga... Just mention my name, and voila, 1 hour later putol na kuryente mo...

[ss3wiper]

regarding burden of proof on this case, may proof ang meralco na hindi mo binayaran YUNG PORTION NA HINDI NILA SININGIL (kasi nga as they claim, may problem pala yung metro)... ang magandang defense dito is if you can prove na walang problem yung meter, at ang ipapalit nilang meter ay hindi naka calibrate, or naka calibrate na bumasa ng mas mataas na reading compared to the one that they claimed na "may sira".... then you can show na walang basis yung pag singil nila sa inyo now... the problem with this defense is that most likely ay nasa posession na ito ng meralco at mahihirapan na tayong ma retrieve iyon in its original condition (from when it was still functioning as your meter) ...
...

Ayon po sa akin pagkaka alam ay iba po yon KW demand sa kw-hr consumed. Sa billing po ay iba ang bayad sa kw-hr and iba din po yong bayad sa demand: yong pong demand ay yong pong pinakamataas na kw na nagamit sa month ng billing. ang ave Demand po ay ma co compute by this formula Demand = kw-hr divided by no of hours in that billing period. so kung proof lang po na na mali yong meter reading ay madali pong i prove yon base na rin on billing for kw-hr consumption.

Ang di ko lang po alam ay pag ganito na fault ng Meralco ay kailangan ba talaga sila ang masunod sa terms of payment? kasi nga kung nag overcharge sila dati ay may ruling ang SC na kailangan nila mag re-fund sa consumers.

[ss3wiper]

Ayon po sa akin pagkaka alam ay iba po yon KW demand sa kw-hr consumed. Sa billing po ay iba ang bayad sa kw-hr and iba din po yong bayad sa demand: yong pong demand ay yong pong pinakamataas na kw na nagamit sa month ng billing. ang ave Demand po ay ma co compute by this formula Demand = kw-hr divided by no of hours in that billing period. so kung proof lang po na na mali yong meter reading ay madali pong i prove yon base na rin on billing for kw-hr consumption..

Example po ng sinsabi ko ay ganito. kung meron kayong billing for kw-hr consumed na 72,000 kw-hr, then the billing period is 30 days.. The number of hours in that billing period is 30 days x 24 hous = 720 hours... Then the ave demand = 72,000/720 = 100 KW sabihin na natin yan na rin yong maximun demand you consumed which is 100 KW, but the billing of Meralco says only 10 KW lang demand nyo na dapat bayaran.. yan po ang mali nila

[111prez]

at the end of the day, whether its the bank overpaying you or you are being billed for electricity actually used but not paid, the civil law principle of unjust enrichment will apply

art 2142 of the civil code states:

"Certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts give rise to the juridical relation of quasi-contract to the end that no one shall be unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another. (n)"

this principle was used by the courts in the vibram case decided by the supreme court

of course, there are certain exceptions to the above rule and that is where legal training comes in and the worth of your legal counsel will be determined

[orly_andico]

for 170k you can buy a generator and tons and tons of gasoline for it :P
but it would be better to cite vibram and say 3 months lang bayad mo. after all sila nagkamali sa paglagay ng decimal point.