LAFAYETTE

PHARMACEUTICAL •
LABORATORIES, INC.,

Complainant,

- versus- ERC CASE NO.2006-026CC

PAMPANGA I .ELECTRIC
COOPERTIVE, INC. (PELCO I)
DOCKETED
Date:; ~,~~ ..9):.,~!!16
Respondent.
13,,:. ,.•.•••••(flL_ _,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _.-- - - x

DECISION

Before the Commission for resolution is the complaint filed by

Lafayette Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc. (Lafayette, for brevity)
against the Pampanga I Electric Cooperative, Inc.. (PELCO I),
questioning the backbillings being. assessed by the latter.
Respondent PELCO I is demanding payment from the complainant,
Lafayette, of backbillings in the amount of Seven Million Four
Hundred Seventy Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Pesos and Eighty
Eight Centavos (Php7,470,740.88), covering the period from
November 1997 to October 2005.
ERC CASE NO. 2006-026CC
Decision/January 19, 2016
Page 2 of 14

FACTS OF THE CASE

Complainant Lafayette is a duly organized and existing

corporation manufacturing pharmaceutical drugs. The complainant
alleged in its complaint that, sometime in November 1997, it entered
into a Sale and Purchase of Electric Power Agreement with the
respondent. Since then, complainant has been drawing electric power
from respondent and regularly paying its monthly consumption based
on respondent's readings.

In order to provide electric service to Lafayette, PELCO I

installed electrical facilities, including two (2) current transformers,
which were placed inside a current transformer box that was then
sealed by PELCO I personnel. The electrical facilities were procured
by Lafayette. A test run was conducted sometime in November 1997
and all facilities were inspected by the engineers and personnel of
PELCO 1.1 The said inspection was confirmed by PELCO I.

On April 29, 1999, one of the 3 units of power transformers that

serviced Lafayette was struck by lightning, causing a total power
failure. An inspection was conducted by PELCO the following day,
and they advised Lafayette that the unit would be replaced by PELCO
I. Before the actual replacement, Lafayette would be using the
remaining two units, but was advised to limit its load to avoid
overloading. Eventually, the transformer was taken down by PELCO
1.2
Sometime in November 2005, Lafayette called PELCO I to
request a testing of its electrical facilities, in order to confirm the
findings of Mr. Esperidion Delgado (Lafayette's Maintenance
Supervisor) that, using a clamp ammeter, the daily current amperage
at Lafayette is already about the maximum limit3. Engr. Nilo Udan
and two (2) other PELCO I personnel arrived at the place and Engr.
Udan instructed one of his companions to climb the pole and open
the metal box. A PELCO I personnel cut the lead seal that secured
and locked the metal box. Lafayette notes that, at the inspection,
Engr. Udan and his companion failed to notice any change,
abnormality or irregularity in the current transformer, the metal box or
its seal. Afterwards, Engr. Udan instructed his companion to close
and reseal the metal and informed Lafayette's representative that
they could not compute the amperage load because they did not
bring any testing instrument. On the second visit, sometime in
November 2005, Engr. Udan's companion climbed the pole, cut the
security seal and did not notice any abnormality or suspicion on the

1 Affidavit of Mr. Roberto S. De Leon, Maintenance Supervisor of Lafayette from October 1997 to
September 30, 2000, Exhibit Q.
2 Report ofMr. De Leon, Exhibit HH for the complainant
3 Sworn Statement ofEspiridion Delgado
ERC CASE NO. 2006-026CC
Decision/January 19, 2016
Page 3 of 14

seal or current transformer, for the second time. However, PELCO I's
meter reader told Mr. Avendano and Mr. Ruben Isaac of Lafayette
that "Lafayette will be billed in accordance with 800:5 CT
because their billing records were wrong since PELCO I's basis
of computation was 400:5, mali ang nakabit na CT compared to
their records ".4

Again, PELCO I representative, led by Engr. Udan, visited the

complainant's laboratory on December 5, 2005. They announced that
they would climb the pole and open the sealed metal box. Engr.
Udan and a lady supervisor informed Mr. Espridion Delgado, Jr. of
Lafayette that the third power transformer, which was brought down,
was being repaired at Victor Electric Shop, owned by Mr. Villarosa
and located in Angeles City.5

On January 2, 2006, PELCO I representatives, comprising

officers and linemen, handed a letter to Lafayette, asking for the
opening of the current transformer again. They took pictures after
cutting the seal of the transformer and failed to mention again any
irregularity in the current transformer, metal box and the security
seals previously installed by PELCO 1.6

On January 18, 2006, Lafayette received a letter from Atty.

Canlas stating, among others, that "many big load consumers,
wittingly or unwittingly would initially install lower rated CTs and
thereafter, without the knowledge and consent of PELCO I would
change or otherwise replace the previously installed CTs with higher
rated CTs which tantamount to pilferage of electricity x x x x."

From the said letter, Lafayette allegedly changed, without the

knowledge and consent of PELCO I, the Current Transformer (CT)
initially installed by the latter, resulting in pilferage. PELCO I also
demanded payment of backbillings in the amount of P7,470.740.00, .
covering the period 1997 to 2006. After a few days, Lafayette
received two (2) statements of account from PELCO I, demanding
payment of the amounts of P297,243.01 and P210,522.75, covering
the periods November 20, 2005 to December 19, 2005 and
December 20, 2005 to January 17, 2006, respectively. Upon receipt
of the statements of account, Mr. Pablito Avendano, Administration
Manager of Lafayette, proceeded to PELCO I's office and inquired
why Lafayette's electric bill doubled. PELCO I informed him of the
alleged error in the multiplier, and threatened to disconnect

;;::::~::~~;:::~~;~~:f:~:n:~l~:payment
said of bi~

6 Position Paper of complainant Lafayette, Nos. 14-16

7 Position Paper of complainant Lafayette, Nos. 16-17
ERC CASE NO. 2006-026CC
Decision/January 19, 2016
Page 4 of 14

Hence, this instant complaint.

On February 1, 2006, the Commission issued an Order

directing respondent PELCO I to file its comment on the complaint
filed by Lafayette.

PELCO I filed its answer with counterclaim on February 20,

2006. It admitted having entered
Power Agreement with Lafayette
the latter's premises. However,
allegedly unlawfully replaced the
of 800:5.
into a Sale and Purchase of Electric
and installed CTs rated at 400:5 at
it recently found that Lafayette had
CTs with different higher rated CTs

PELCO I alleged that, sometime in November 2005,

complainant requested for assistance in determining the load of its
transformers. Engr. Udan of PELCO I proceeded to the place. He
noticed that some tree branches were almost touching the electric
power lines and advised Lafayette's representatives to trim the said
branches. Thereafter, he scheduled the testing of the Lafayette's
transformer. However, prior to the inspection, Engr. Udan learned
that the multiplier used in computing Lafayette's electric bills was 80.
Thus, he presumed that the current transformers installed at
Lafayette's premises had a CT Rating of 400:5.8

On November 30, 2005, Engr. Udan conducted his inspection

at the complainant's factory in the presence of Lafayette's
representatives. He opened the CT box and meter box, and
discovered that the two (2) CTs installed had sticker markings of
800:5, leading him to conclude that the CTs being used were actually
rated 800:5 and not 400:5. Upon further verification, Engr. Udan
discovered that the originally-installed CTs procured by Lafayette had
a CT rating of 400:5. There was also no evidence on record showing
that PELCO I approved the replacement of the lower rated CTs with
the higher rated CTs, as well as the installation and use of the said
higher-rated CTs.9

On December 2, 2005, Nelia D. Lorenzo, Auditor of PELCO "

with Engr. Udan and the system loss Reduction Crew, proceeded to
the subject premises and met Lafayette's Manager and Technical
Consultant to discuss the recently discovered use of a high rated CT
and its possible consequences.10

A joint verification/inspection was conducted on January 2,

2006. PELCO I found out that Lafayette was actually using CTs rated
at 800:5, which were different from the CTs lower rated at 400:5

8 Respondent's Answer with Counterclaim, Paragraph 6

9 Respondent's Answer with Counterclaim, Paragraph 6
10 Respondent's Answer with Counterclaim, Paragraph 6
ERC CASE NO. 2006-026CC
Decision/January 19, 2016
Page 5 of 14

originally installed by PELCO 1.11 With the discovery of the higher

rated CTs, PELCO I recomputed the electric power consumption of
Lafayette covering the period starting from November 1997 to
October 2005 using a 160 multiplier based on the CT rating of 800:5.
The recomputation yielded a differential billing of Php7,470,740.00.

Several hearings ensued wherein both parties presented

evidence in support of their allegations. In the course of the hearing,
the Commission directed its CAS engineers to conduct an inspection
of the transformers in question on March 24, 2006. The CAS
engineers confirmed that the CTs had a ratio of 800:5.

On various dates, complainant and respondent submitted their

respective Memorandum.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not the current transformer installed at the TLRC

Compound for Lafayette was changed or tampered from the
ratio 400:5 to 800:5; and

2. Whether or not the complainant is liable to pay PELCO I the

differential billing in the amount of Php7,740,470.88
representing the electricity actually consumed from
November 1997 to October 2005.

DISCUSSION

The facts are undisputed. Lafayette requested for a testing by

PELCO I to confirm Lafayette's findings that the daily current
amperage is already about the maximum limit. Inspections were
conducted by PELCO I representatives, and it was discovered that
the CTs used by Lafayette had a rating of 800:5 and not 400:5. The
CTs are installed beside the power transformers, as seen from the.
submitted pictures in evidence. PELCO I claims that Lafayette
changed the CTs without the knowledge and consent of PELCO I.
However, Lafayette denies having changed the same as the
transformer box housing the CTs was sealed by PELCO I, and the
CTs could not be changed unless the box was opened and there was
no power flowing to the transformer.

Hence the question is, was there a change in the CTs from
those with a ratio of 400:5 to 800:5? If they were changed, when did
this occur, and by whom? ~

1\ Respondent's Answer with Counterclaim, Paragraph 10

"

ERC CASE NO. 2006-026CC

Decision/January 19, 2016
Page 6 of 14

PELCO I maintains that the CTs installed at Lafayette's

premises had a ratio of 400:5. However, it was discovered that the
CTs actually installed had a ratio of 800:5. Lafayette denies having
changed the said CTs. Thus, it is imperative that Lafayette's
consumption history be reviewed to determine approximately when a
possible change in the CTs could have occurred. If the CTs were
changed from those with a lower ratio to ones with a higher ratio,
there should have been a drastic change or drop in the average
consumption of the customer.

Assuming that the CTs originally installed had a ratio of 400:5, if

the current flowing in the primary winding of the CT is 400 amperes
(which is also the same current flowing to the load), then the current
flowing in the secondary winding of the CT where the meter is
connected would be 5 amperes. Thus, the meter would register the
measured 5 amperes. If the CTs were changed to ones with a ratio of
800:5, with the current flowing at 400 amperes, then the meter would
measure and register 2.5 amperes, thereby reducing the
consumption of the customer by half. The actual consumption would
still be the same but the metered consumption would only be half of
the said actual consumption.

How is the foregoing principle applied in the instant case? In

order to obtain the kilowatt hour consumption of the customer, we use
the following formula:

E = ('v3) V x I x Pf x t
100
('v3 is added in the equation because the system is three-phase
and not single-phase)

Where:
E = energy in watthour
V = voltage (volts)
I = current (amperes)
Pf = Power factor (%)
t = time (hr)

Assuming that the primary current is 400 amp, voltage is 230,

the power factor is 0.8 or 80% and time is one hour, let us apply and
see the difference with respect to the use of the two CTs with
different ratiO

a
ERC CASE NO. 2006-026CC
Decision/January 19, 2016
Page 7 of 14

E = ~(230V) 400Amp
X X 0.8 X 1
100
= 127.48 kWh

Condition NO.1

If the CT installed has a ratio of 400:5, the energy consumption

would be computed as follows:

E = (-V3)VxlxPfxt
1000
= (-V3)230 V x 5 A x 0.8 x 1
1000
= 1.5935 kWh

If multiplied by the CT ratio:

= 1.5935 kWh x 80
= 127.48 kWh (same as the actual consumption)

Condition NO.2

Assuming the same load, if the installed CT has a ratio of 800:5

(multiplier would be 800/5 = 160, but since the recorded CT has a
ratio of 400:5, the recorded multiplier is only 80), the energy
consumption would be computed as follows:

E = (-V3)VxlxPfxt
1000
= (-V3)230 V x 2.5 A x 0.8 x 1
1000
= .7967 kWh

If multiplied by the recorded CT ratio (80):

= .7967 kWh x 80
= 63.74 kWh (only half of the actual consumption)

A review of the consumption history of the customer shows that

it increased steadily in the first few months until the said consumption
tapered off in 1999. There were no drastic drops that were
maintained. Although there were a few downward spikes, subsequent
consumptions would return to within the regular range. Thus, from the
consumption pattern, there is a very strong indication that there was
no change in the CTs that were installed. The consumption pattern of
Lafayette from 1998 to 2005 is hereby attached as Annex ~

If
.'
ERC CASE NO. 2006-026CC
Decision/January 19, 2016
Page 8 of 14

Therefore, considering that PELCO I inspected the electrical facilities

of Lafayette before the installation and sealed the transformer box, it
can be presumed that the discovered CTs with a ratio of 800:5 were
already installed at the time of energization of Lafayette's premises.
This clearly shows that PELCO I was remiss in its obligation to exert
extra-ordinary diligence in the conduct of its distribution business.

Lafayette's premises were energized in the latter part of 1997

and it was only in 2005 that the CTs with an allegedly wrong multiplier
were discovered. There was already an opportunity for PELCO I to
discover the said error when they removed one of the power
transformers of Lafayette, but no discovery was made. It may be
argued that since the CTs were encased inside a sealed transformer
box, PELCO I representatives could very easily disregard having to
inspect the same.

In Ridjo Tape and Chemical Corporation, Inc. vs. Court of

Appeals12, et. aI., it ruled that:

"The Supreme Court established the doctrine

which simply states that the public utility has the
imperative duty to make a reasonable and proper
inspection of its apparatus and equipment to ensure
that they do not malfunction. Its failure to
discover the defects, if any. considering the
length of time, amounts to inexcusable
negligence. It further elucidated that a more
plausible interpretation is to apply the rule on
negligence whether the defect is inherent,
intentional or unintentional, which therefore covers
tampering, mechanical defects and mistakes in the
computation of the consumer's billings."
(Emphasis supplied)

It was only when Lafayette requested PELCO I for a

determination of its daily current amperage, which would be obtained
by merely checking the electricity flow from its power transformers,
that they checked the CTs encased in a transformer box located very
near the power transformers. It should be noted that there were only
two power transformers at Lafayette's premises, as one was removed
in 1999 and was still being repaired.

The Commission finds that Lafayette Pharmaceutical

Laboratories did not change or tamper its current transformer and
respondent PELCO I committed inexcusable negligence by failing to
indicate the correct multiplier in its electric bills to comPlaina/1

12 GR No. 126074 February 24, 1998 ()

ERC CASE NO. 2006-026CC
Decision/January 19, 2016
Page 9 of 14

PELCO I argues that "As shown by the records, the original

current transformers originally installed at the premises of the
complainant for its sole and exclusive were rated at 400:5. While
the originally installed current transformers or CTs were tested
and installed by the respondent, the same were procured by the
complainant itself,. as evidenced and shown by the letter of a
certain Enorio (Noy) Macaspac of EM Macaspac Enterprises,
together with the bill of materials showing the rating of the
current transformers procured by the complainant13. x x x"

However, a perusal of the attached document from EM

Macaspac shows that it is actually a "Quotation No. 080397" for the
supply and installation of electrical system, and not a delivery receipt.
Under its Terms and Conditions, the said delivery and validity is
subject to final confirmation and it states that "We trust that our offer
meets your requirements and will be glad to serve you.,d4
(Underscoring supplied). Being merely an offer to supply, PELCO I
cannot rely upon the same to substantiate its claim that what was
actually delivered to Lafayette was a CT rated 400:5.

PELCO I admits that it was the one that installed the CTs,
which was placed inside a metal enclosure with an attached PELCO I
security seal. Respondent's representatives never mentioned that the
security seal of the box had been tampered, giving the conclusion
that the same was intact when they opened the metal enclosure.
Pictures of the said metal enclosure and the CTs inside showing the
numbers 80015 were submitted to the Commission as part of the
records of the case. Since there was no question as to the integrity of
the security seal, it can be deduced that only PELCO I had access to
the CTs inside the said enclosure. If Lafayette tried to change or
tamper with the CTs, it would have to open the metal enclosure,
thereby breaking the said seal. There was no such indication of any
attempt to open the said metal enclosure.

Regrettably, PELCO I failed to establish that Lafayette replaced

the CTs from ones lower rated at 400:5 to those rated at 800:5.

It can be argued that Lafayette had an "electrician" for the

maintenance of its electrical facilities and, thus, that person may
possess the technical expertise to effect the change in the CTs
without endangering himself. However, this presumption is negated
by the intact seals of the transformer box and the steady consumption
pattern of Lafayette. If the CTs were changed, the seals should have
been destroyed and there should have been a drop in the average

13 Item 2 of Respondent's Answer with counterclaim dated February 18, 2006

14 Annex A of Answer with Counterclaim dated February 18,2006
15 Annexes C-C2 of Answer with Counterclaim dated February 18,2006
ERC CASE NO. 2006-026CC
Decision/January 19, 2016
Page 10 of 14

consumption of the customer. Unfortunately for PELCO I, there were

no such occurrences.

Premises considered, only PELCO I could have installed the

CTs rated 800:5 inside the metal enclosure, and its failure to indicate
in its records the proper CT ratio amounts to inexcusable negligence
on its part. Even assuming that the customer was the one that
installed the CTs, it is still incumbent upon the distribution utility to
conduct an inspection of the same before energization of the line. It
is undisputed that there was such an inspection confirmed by both
parties.

Distribution utilities, including electric cooperatives, are

obligated to exercise extraordinary diligence in the conduct of their
operations. This obligation has been affirmed by the Supreme Court
in numerous cases.

In the case of Manila Electric Company vs. Wilcon Builders

Supply, Inc.,16.

"The Supreme Court stated vis, we would like

to emphasize at this point that the production and
distribution of electricity is a highly technical
business undertaking, and in conducting its
operation, it is only logical for a public utility to
employ mechanical devices and equipment for the
orderly pursuit of its business. Indeed it would be
highly inequitable if we are to allow a public utility
company to be continuously remiss in its duly and
then later charge the customer exorbitant amounts
for the alleged unbilled consumption or differential
billing when such a situation could have been easily
averted. We simply cannot sanction petitioner's
utter neglect of its duty over a number of years, as
this would undoubtedly be detrimental to the interest
of consuming public. In the final analysis, petitioner
should bear the loss. Public Service companies
which do not exercise prudence in the
discharge of their duties shall be made to bear
the consequences of such oversight." (Emphasis
supplied)

Thus, Lafayette Pharmaceutical Laboratories should not be

held liable for the payment of the entire underbilling being claimed by

2o/'i
PELCO I. Its actual obligation can be computed based on applicable
jurisprudence at the time of discovery of the anomaly in

16 G.R. No. 171534 June 30, 2008

ERC CASE NO. 2006-026CC
Decision/January 19, 2016
Page 11 of 14

In a similar case, Panay Electric Company (PECO) VS. Court

17
of Appeals , the distribution utility PECO also discovered, through
an audit, the erroneous use of a multiplier arising from a change in
the CTs used in the customer's premises, which ratio was not
properly recorded. It attempted to collect the underbilling from the
customer but was not eventually allowed by the Supreme Court. In
was stated in its decision that:

"We agree with the private respondents that

the principal issue in this case can be narrowed
down to the question, as follows: Can an electric
company which had erroneously billed a consumer
of electricity for sixty-one (61) consecutive months
(5 years and one month) due to continuous and
successive mistakes of the electric company's
employees in its meter reading department and the
customer's service department, without any
participation of the consumer, and where the
consumer relied upon such bills presented to him
and paid the same, be barred by estoppel, from
claiming P297,497.47 as monthly accumulated
deficiency due to the company.

"Certainly, mistakes committed by the

employees of petitioner for sixty-one (61) times
corresponding to sixty-one (61) monthly billings,
cannot, by any means, be considered simple
mistakes. Mistakes committed sixty-one (61)
consecutive times, repeatedly, by employees who
are supposed and presumed, technically speaking,
to know what they were doing, would certainly fall
under the classification of inexcusable negligence.
A few acts of negligence, and certain circumstances
providing an excuse for them, may be considered
simple mistakes, but not repeated acts of
negligence committed by men who are supposed to
know what they are doing. To us, the repeated acts
of petitioner's employees amounted to culpable or
inexcusable negligence.

"The principle of estoppel is recognized in

Title IV Articles 1431 to 1439 of the Civil Code.
According to the Code Commission "(a)n important
branch of American Law is estoppel. It is a source
of many rules which work out justice between the
_____ p_a_rt_ie_s_,
_th_ruthe operation of the principle that ~

17 GR No. 81939, June 29,1989 6

ERC CASE NO. 2006-026CC
Decision/January 19, 2016
Page 12 of 14

admission or representation is rendered conclusive

upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or
disproved as against the person relying thereon."

"Through estoppel, an admission or representation

is rendered conclusive upon the person making it,
and cannot be denied or disproved as against the
person relying thereon. Estoppel in pais (equitable
estoppel) arises when one, by his acts,
representations or admissions, or by his silence
when he ought to speak out, intentionally,
or through culpable negligence, induces another to
believe certain facts to exist and such other
rightfully relies and acts on such belief, so that he
will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny
the existence of such facts. xxx

"We are convinced that both the trial court and

the Court of Appeals did not commit any error in
concluding that mistakes in computation done by
petitioner's employees constituted gross
inefficiency, culpable negligence and lack of
diligence and supervision, without any fault or
participation of private respondents. Petitioner is the
only one to blame for such mistakes, repeatedly
made, arising from culpable negligence of its
employees.

"Even if We assume that both petitioner

and private respondents were not negligent
under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. when
one of two innocent persons, each guiltless of
any intentional or moral wrong, must suffer a
loss, it must be borne by that one of them
whose erroneous conduct, either of omission or
commission, was the cause of the injury."
(Underscoring supplied)

In the PECO case, the distribution utility was estopped from

recovering from the end-user as a result of its failure to correct its
erroneous billings 61 times as this was considered an act of

4
inexcusable negligence on its part. We find that this is not wholly
applicable in the instant case as it had been superseded by the Ridjo
ruling.
ERC CASE NO. 2006-026CC
Decision/January 19, 2016
Page 13 of 14

In the case at bar, the distribution utility is allowed to recover

however the extent of which shall be limited to three months only
consistent with the ruling in the Ridjo case for failure to effect the
immediate change of a meter that had stopped functioning in its
customer's premises.

It is evident from the aforementioned cases that PELCO I

cannot recover undercharged billing if the reason for the same is its
own error. Guided by the ruling in the Ridjo case, the Commission
promulgated hereunder principles embodied under Article III 3.5.7 (b)
of the Distribution Service and Open Access Rules (DSOAR), as
amended, in resolving issues of this nature before the Commission.

ADJUSTMENT FOR BILLING

Billing errors resulting from a defective/stop

meter without any evidence of tampering shall be
governed by the provision of these guidelines and
the Magna Carta for Residential Consumers.

In cases of other billing errors, the following

principles shall apply

xxxx

(b) Payments for undercharge shall be computed

back to the date on which the error commenced,
however, in no case where the error or omission is
due to the fault of the DU, shall a bill for undercharge
be computed for a period exceeding three (3)
months. (Emphasis supplied)

In case of disagreement, the ERC shall resolve

the same."

The records of the case clearly showed that Lafayette's monthly

bills contained error resulting from the use of a wrong multiplier. The
correct multiplier should have been 800:5 or 160 rather than 400:5 or
80 which was the one reflected in the monthly electric bills of
Lafayette. Thus, this constitutes one of the other billing errors, arising
from human/technical errors, contemplated in the DSOAR. Although it
may be argued that the DSOAR was promulgated after the discovery
of the wrong multiplier, the re overy period under the Ridjo Tape
case can still be applied.
. ,
. .
ERC CASE NO. 2006-026CC
Decision/January 19, 2016
Page 14 of 14

Thus, considering the foregoing principles, PELCO I cannot

claim the entire undercharged billing against Lafayette without
violating the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the
aforecited cases.

In view of the foregoing, the Commission holds that

complainant Lafayette Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc. is only liable
to pay respondent PELCO I underbillinqs equivalent to a period of
three @) months prior to the date of discovery.

With respect to its subsequent electric bills after the discovery

of the correct multiplier, they should now reflect the same as 800:5
instead of 400:5.

SO ORDERED.

Pasig City, January 19, 2016.

- C--
< -•.....•.. .../

7
JOSE VICENTE B. SALAZAR
Chairman

(On Leave)
ALFREDO J. NON
Ct nJJr,~ ~. _i-
Gp:>RIA\'ICTORIA PAP. TARUC
Commissioner Com ssioner

l/--
JOSEFINA P RONIMO D. STA. ANA
Commissioner

Copy Furnished:
Atty. Lourdy D. Torres
Counsel for Complainant
37 Casanova Drive, Gloria III
Culiat, Tandang Sora, Quezon City

Pampanga I Electric Cooperative, Inc.

(PELCO I)
Sto. Domingo, Mexico, Pampanga

Daisylinda S. Garcia
TLRC Productivity Center
Pandacaqui Resettlement Area
Mexico Pampanga

MCCG/decision.2006-026CC