Republic of the Philippines ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION San Miguel Avenue, Pasig City QUINTIN CANAYA, Complainant, ERC CASE NO, 2005-380CC -versus- and other high billing complaints collectively known as Pabahay 2000 cases MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET.AL, Respondents. QUINTIN CANAYA and JUSTINO TANEDO, Complainants, ERC CASE NO. 2005-381¢C ~versus- and other high billing complaints collectively known as Pabahay 2000 cases MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET.AL., Respondents. CONSUMERS AFFAIR LEGAL, INC,, QUINTIN CANAYA, ET. AL., Complainants, ERC CASE NOs. 2006-575CC, ~versus- 2006-579CC and other high billing complaints collectively known as Pabahay 2000 cases MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET.AL., Respondents. x ORDER For resolution is the “Motion for Reconsideration’ fled by Quintin Canaya etal. on April 26, 2010 praying that the Decision in the above-captioned cases dated December 1, 2009 be reconsidered and a new one be rendered, to wit That with respect to the alleged legitimacy of the elevation of the electric meters it be reconsidered and declare the action of the Respondents illegal and in violation of the right of theERC CASE NOS. 2005-380CC, 2005-381CC, 2006-575CC & 2008-579CC and other high billing complaints collectively known as Pabahay 2000 cases Order/10 June 2010 Page 2 of 3 Complainants under the Magna Carta for Residential Electricity Consumer as it was done in violation of the members, there was No consent or were given authority to transfer the electric meter to that elevated portion. 2. That the INNACCURATE meter readings, the fault of which should be attributed to the Respondents and not to the Complainants and if there was such inaccuracy which resulted to higher billing or over billing, the Complainants should not be made to pay the difference of their previous consumption before the elevation of such electric meters. 3. That the electric meter of the Complainants should be returned to their respective houses.” On May 4, 2010, MERALCO filed its “Opposition to the Complainants’ Motion for Reconsideration” praying that the said motion be denied for lack of merit A perusal of the Motion for Reconsideration reveals that complainants merely reiterated the same arguments they earlier raised, which were already Passed upon by the Commission, Neither did they present any new and Substantial evidence sufficient to reverse the Commission's earlier findings. WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of Quintin Canaya, et. al. is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. No second motion for reconsideration shall be entertained. SO ORDERED.ERC CASE NOS. 2005-380CC, 2005-381CC, 2006-575CC & 2006-579CC and other high billing complaints collectively known as Pabahay 2000 cases Order/10 June 2010 Page 3 of 3 Pasig City, June 10, 2010. FOR AND BY AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION Counsel for Complainants fA BARIN Commissioner 7 2IF Commercial Bldg. 1 Capitol Compound, Malolos, Bulacan sincccmeec”™ Copy furnished: Atty. Sergio Esquivel Bernabe Alty. Angelo Medina, et.al ‘Counsels for the Respondent MERALCO. Ortigas Ave., Pasig City