Scribd
Upload
172 views1 page

G.R. No. 205035, November 16, 2016 Spouses Gemino C. Miano, Jr. and Juliet Miano V. Manila Electric Company (Meralco) Facts

The spouses Miano filed a petition for review on certiorari against Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) regarding a billing differential of P422,185.20 for electricity consumed due to jumpers on their electric meters. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that it raised a question of fact rather than law. As the petition asked the court to review the factual finding on the billing amount, it did not fall under any exception to the general rule that certiorari only addresses questions of law. Therefore, the proper remedy was not a petition for review on certiorari.

Uploaded by

Lara Cacal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
172 views1 page

G.R. No. 205035, November 16, 2016 Spouses Gemino C. Miano, Jr. and Juliet Miano V. Manila Electric Company (Meralco) Facts

The spouses Miano filed a petition for review on certiorari against Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) regarding a billing differential of P422,185.20 for electricity consumed due to jumpers on their electric meters. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that it raised a question of fact rather than law. As the petition asked the court to review the factual finding on the billing amount, it did not fall under any exception to the general rule that certiorari only addresses questions of law. Therefore, the proper remedy was not a petition for review on certiorari.

Uploaded by

Lara Cacal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

205035, November 16, 2016


SPOUSES GEMINO C. MIANO, JR. AND JULIET MIANO v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY
[MERALCO]

FACTS:

Sps. Miano are users of the electric service provided by the MERALCO, they have one
electric meter for their residence and one for their sari-sari store. Both electric meters
were disconnected by MERALCO due to jumpers. MERALCO issue issued a billing
differential in the amount of P422,185.20, representing the unbilled amount of electricity
consumed due to the jumpers. MERALCO refused to reconnect Sps. Miano's electricity
service due to their non-payment of the billing differential. Sps. Miano filed a Complaint for
damages and injunction with Urgent Prayer for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction against
MERALCO. Both the trial court and the CA ordered petitioners to pay the billing differential.
The sps. Miano filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
so that the SC could determine the billing differential.

ISSUE:

Whether or not filing of the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court was proper.

HELD:

No. The remedy of petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court is used to answer question of law, not question of facts. Jurisprudence dictates that
there is a "question of law" when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a
certain set of facts or circumstances; on the other hand, there is a "question of fact" when
the issue raised on appeal pertains to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.

In the present case, petitioners ask the Court to review the billing differential of
P422,185.20. Considering that the lone issue in this appeal pertains only to the billing
differential of Php422,185.20 allegedly due to MERALCO, petitioners will reiterate the
narration of facts of the trial court and the CA related to the said issue and determine if the
same is in accordance with the evidence presented by the parties. Petitioners admit that
the only issue for resolution before this Court is a question of fact, yet they claim that the
present Petition falls under the exceptions to the general rule, which they have not clearly
established to be an exception. Hence, the petition must be denied.

You might also like