THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT, PETITIONER, VS. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND SABINO PADILLA, RESPONDENTS.

This
is a petition filed by the Metropolitan Water District to review the
judgment rendered by the Public Service Commission amending the
former’s rules and regulations regarding inspection and repair of water
meters as follows:

“We believe that, in
order to avoid complaints and suspicion on the part of the consumers,
every water meter should be tested at the place where it is installed
before its removal for repairs to the respondent’s shops on Arroceros
Street; and that after repair and reinstallation thereof, another test
should be made to ascertain if it is registering correctly, such tests
in both instances to be made in the presence of the owner of the
property or his duly authorized representative. In this manner, the
interests of both parties are duly safeguarded. In both instances, it
is also incumbent upon the respondent to send by messenger, in order to
insure receipt thereof by the consumer, a written notice sufficiently
in advance of the proposed test of the water meter and removal thereof,
if necessary, as well as of the reinstallation and retest to be made,
and this procedure shall invariably be followed by the respondent in
the above-mentioned cases.

“Any regulation of the
respondent entity, in conflict with the ruling laid down in this
decision is hereby amended in accordance therewith.

“This
decision shall take effect immediately and shall become final 30 days
after the receipt of the notice hereof by the interested parties.”

In the case of the Metropolitan Water District vs. Public Utility Commission (46 Phil., 412), this court held:

“2.
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT; ESTABLISHMENT OF RATES FOR MAINTENANCE AND
UPKEEP OF METERS AND PIPE LINES; POWER OF DISTRICT BOARD.—The District
Board of the Metropolitan Water District has power to prescribe uniform
rates for the maintenance and upkeep of the meters and connecting pipe
lines belonging to consumers of the waters supplied by said Water
District.”

The complaint filed by Judge
Sabino Padilla consists in that when he received the notice to the
effect that the water meter installed at his wife’s house at No. 132
Juan Luna was to be tested on November 29, 1932, the test had already
been made and the meter in question had been removed to the repair
shops of the Metropolitan Water District. He also alleged that the same
irregularity had likewise been committed in other buildings belonging
to his wife.

The fact that on various occasions the notices
sent to Judge Sabino Padilla were received by him after the date set
therein for the test and even after the test in question had already
been made, does not render the rules and regulations of the respondent
Metropolitan Water District regarding inspection, testing and repair of
meters, unreasonable. At most, it constitutes either negligence on the
part of the person in charge of sending out the notices, or delay in
the mail, or failure on the part of the person who received the letter
in the house of the addressee, to deliver it promptly. These defects
may be corrected by filing a complaint with the Director of the
Metropolitan Water District or with the Director of Posts, as the case
may be.

The Metropolitan Water District being vested with
legal power to prescribe the procedure to be followed relative to
inspection and repair of water meters, in the absence of evidence
showing that such rules and regulations are unreasonable and unjust,
the Public Service Commission has no authority to change them.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is hereby
reversed, without special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Malcolm, Abad Santos, Hull, and Imperial, JJ., concur.