OPLE LAW

14/10/2025

Heads up EMPLOYERS! New Minimum Wage Order for Central Luzon will be implemented on 30 October 2025 (First Tranche), FYI.

24/09/2025

Our very own Founder Atty. Lester Nazarene Ople shares his views on the on-going issue on flood control projects in Bulacan.

27/08/2025

FYI: Para sa mga may SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY (SPA) - death of principal equals death of validity of such SPA

Nagpasya ang na awtomatikong natatapos ang bisa ng isang Special Power of Attorney sa pagkamatay ng taong nagbigay nito. Anumang hakbang na gagawin ng kinatawan matapos ang pagkamatay ng principal ay walang bisa, maliban kung sakop ng mga exception sa ilalim ng batas.

Sa isang Desisyon na isinulat ni Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, sinabi ng Ikatlong Dibisyon ng Korte Suprema na nawalan ng awtoridad si Jessica Alova Uberas (Jessica) na kumilos sa ngalan ng kanyang amang si Meliton Alova (Meliton), dahil natapos na ang bisa ng SPA sa pagkamatay ni Meliton noong 1998.

Taong 1998 nang nagpagawa si Meliton ng isang SPA pabor sa anak na si Jessica kaugnay ng ari-arian nilang mag-asawa. Namatay siya sa huling bahagi ng parehong taon. Sa kabila nito, ginamit ni Jessica ang SPA noong 2003 para makakuha ng loan mula sa San Miguel Foods, Inc. (SMFI) sa pamamagitan ng pagsangla sa ari-arian ng kanyang yumaong ama. Nabigong bayaran ni Jessia ang loan at na-foreclose ang ari-arian kung saan ang SMFI ang nanalong bidder.

Nagsampa ng kaso upang mapawalang-bisa ang mortgage at foreclosure sale sina Felicidad Alova at Decelyn Alova Pution, ang balo at iba pang anak ni Meliton.

Parehong nagpasya ang Regional Trial Court (RTC) at Court of Appeals (CA) na natapos ang bisa ng SPA sa pagkamatay ni Meliton. Gayunman, sinabi ng RTC na dahil may pagsang-ayon sa SPA ang asawa ni Meliton na si Felicidad, may bisa ang sangla sa kanyang kalahating bahagi ng conjugal property. Sa kabilang banda, idineklara ng CA na walang bisa ang mortgage dahil hindi ito isinagawa sa ngalan ng mag-asawang Meliton at Felicidad.

Umapela ang SMFI sa Korte Suprema na bahagyang nagpasya pabor dito nang itinaguyod ang pagwawakas ng ahensiya pero binigyang-bisa ang mortgage at foreclosure sale kaugnay sa bahagi ni Jessica sa ari-arian.

Paliwanag ng Korte Suprema, sa ilalim ng SPA na isang kontrata ng ahensiya, pinahihintulutan ng principal ang isang ahente na kumilos sa ngalan niya sa mga transaksiyon kaugnay ng ibang partido. Ang ahensiya ay personal, kinatawan, at hinango, at nagtatapos ito sa pagkamatay ng alinman sa prinsipal o ahente.

Walang bisa ang anumang aksiyon ng ahente pagkatapos mamatay ang prinsipal maliban kung napapailalim ito sa dalawang exception sa Civil Code: (1) kapag ang ahensiya ay para sa karaniwang interes ng mga partido, at (2) kapag ang ahente, na hindi batid ang pagkamatay o pagtatapos ng ahensiya, ay nakipagkontrata sa isang ikatlong partido nang may good faith.

Sa kasong ito, walang pagpapakita na naaangkop ang mga exception na ito. Ganap na alam ni Jessica ang pagkamatay ng kanyang ama at hindi ginawa ang SPA para sa benepisyo nilang dalawa.

Iginiit ng Korte Suprema na para maitali ang principal sa aksiyon ng isang ahente, dapat malinaw ang kasulatan na ginawa, pinirmahan, at sinelyuhan sa pangalan ng principal. Dito, nilagdaan ang mortgage ni Jessica sa kanyang personal na kapasidad bagama't inilarawan siya nito bilang attorney-in-fact ni Meliton.

Hindi rin nakasaad bilang principal sa ilalim ng SPA ang asawa ni Meliton na si Felicidad.

Gayunman, nilinaw ng Korte Suprema na hindi ganap na walang bisa ang mortgage at foreclosure sale. Awtomatikong naging co-owner ng property si Jessica pagkatapos ng pagkamatay ng kanyang ama. Noong pinirmahan niya ang mortgage, inilagay niya ang kanyang bahagi sa ari-arian upang matiyak ang kanyang obligasyon sa SMFI. Samakatuwid, may bisa lamang ang mortgage at foreclosure sale para sa bahagi ni Jessica sa ari-arian.

Ibinalik ng Korte Suprema ang kaso sa RTC para matukoy ang bahagi ni Jessica sa nasabing pag-aari at i-annotate ang mga bahagi ng iba pang tagapagmana ni Meliton, at ng SMFI na nakakuha ng interes ni Jessica.

Basahin ang press release sa https://tinyurl.com/27t9k6vy.

Basahin ang Desisyon sa https://t.co/hNAbdz5jd0.

Sumunod sa Credit Attribution Policy ng SC PIO: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

24/08/2025

Our very own founding partner, Atty. Lester Nazarene Ople served as one of the Bar Review lecturers of the AUSL Bar Review Program.

28/07/2025

📢𝗠𝗚𝗔 𝗟𝗢𝗞𝗔𝗦𝗬𝗢𝗡 𝗡𝗚 𝗡𝗟𝗥𝗖 𝗔𝗥𝗕𝗜𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗕𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗛𝗘𝗦 𝗔𝗧 𝗦𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗟𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗘 𝗢𝗙𝗙𝗜𝗖𝗘𝗦 𝗦𝗔 𝗕𝗨𝗢𝗡𝗚 𝗣𝗜𝗟𝗜𝗣𝗜𝗡𝗔𝗦 📢

Ang National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ay may mga Arbitration Branch at Satellite Office sa iba’t ibang bahagi ng bansa upang mas epektibong mapagsilbihan ang publiko.

Para sa kumpletong detalye ng kanilang mga address at lokasyon, i-click ang link na ito: https://nlrc.dole.gov.ph/site/contact-us

Manatiling may alam at madaling ma-access ang mga serbisyo ng NLRC! 💼⚖️

30/06/2025

NEW WAGE RATES FOR NCR per Wage Order No. NCR-26 Series of 2025

𝐋𝐎𝐎𝐊: 𝐍𝐂𝐑 𝐰𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 ₱𝟓𝟎 𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐦 𝐰𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞

Around 1.2 million minimum wage earners in Metro Manila are set to receive a ₱50 daily pay hike starting 18 July 2025, bringing the new minimum wage rates to ₱695 for the non-agriculture sector and ₱658 for workers in agriculture, retail and service establishments with 15 or fewer employees, and manufacturing firms with less than 10 regular workers. This follows the issuance of Wage Order No. NCR-26, the highest increase ever approved by the NCR Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board.

19/11/2024

Legal Spaghetti: Not just Meralco’s Wires
Atty. Lester Nazarene V. Ople

The Filipino language colorfully describes entangled overhead electrical wires as “spaghetti wires.” It’s funny because not only can the word “spaghetti” describe entangled overhead electrical wiring, but it also aptly describes the story of MERALCO’s per kilowatt-hour rate. The description of "spaghetti" is made more apt with the evening news report saying that the Energy Regulatory Commission has ordered the regulatory reset of MERALCO.

Here, I undertake to explain the convoluted saga of MERALCO rate cases beginning from the last ERC-approved rate, all the way until the current applications now pending before the Energy Regulatory Commission and the Court of Appeals, for the appreciation of the ordinary consumer so inclined to be informed.

1. Starting Point: ERC Case No. 2015-112 RC filed 11 June 2015

In this application, MERALCO applied for an Interim Average Rate (IAR) of PHP1.3939/kWh which will be translated into a distribution rate by customer class. On 10 July 2015, the ERC en banc granted Provisional Authority to implement an IAR of PHP1.3810/kWh instead. It must be noted that the Order emphasized that the 3RP will be subject to a true-up in accordance with the 6 July 2011 Order in ERC Case No. 2010-069 RC.

2. ERC Case No. 2020-043 RC filed 23 December 2020

In this application, MERALCO proposed to use the true-up calculation of the Actual Weighted Average Tariff (AWAT) vis-à-vis the IAR of PHP1.3810 for the lapsed regulatory years, and the approval of the refund scheme to account for the lapsed regulatory period, particularly the refund of around PHP14B.
The ERC granted Provisional Authority for the refund of PHP14B shortly after the filing thereof.
In an Order dated 16 June 2022, the ERC approved, with modifications, the application of MERALCO for the true-up calculation of the AWAT vs the IAR.
Particularly, the said Order:
a) Recognizes that Sec. 43f of the EPIRA empowered the ERC to adopt a rate-setting methodology that would ensure a reasonable price of electricity;
b) Recognizes that the “best way forward from this situation is to immediately conduct the Reset Process for these PDUs in order to have a reasonable distribution rate that is just to all stakeholders, especially the consumers;
c) Recognizes that since RDWR is a forward-looking rate setting mechanism, certain RDWR provisions are not applicable to the lapsed period;
d) Adopted a confirmation and true-up process that yielded a recomputed IAR of PHP1.3522 as against the AWAT to determine resulting overrecovery, emphasizing that the confirmed rates shall be based on adjusted RAB and recomputed IAR of MERALCO.
Additional note, the ERC gave credence to the arguments of AJN regarding the erroneous double-counting of inflation.
Lastly, the ERC approved an additional refund of PHP 21B by virtue of its Decision that disposed of the same.
AJN filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, and asserted that while the refund is welcome, the Commission erred in correcting the double-counted inflation and there is at least PHP 84B that must still be refunded, among other defects submitted to the ERC itself.
The ERC ruled against the Motion for Partial Reconsideration and affirmed the earlier decision. Post-judgment remedies are being sought in this case.

3. Consolidated 3RP Cases: ERC Case Nos. 2010-069 RC, 2011-088 RC, 2012-054 RC, 2013-056 RC, and 2014-029 RC

In an Order dated 10 June 2022, the ERC consolidated a Decision on the MAP applications of MERALCO covering the years: 2012 (2011-088RC); 2013 (2012-054RC); 2014 (2013-056RC); and 2015 (2014-029RC).

It must be noted that in page 110 of this Decision, it is stated that on 21 March 2019, the Commission resolved that the results of the RAB true-up will be the basis to resolve the provisional MAPs for the 3RP and to determine an acceptable opening RAB to be rolled forward to the next RP, yet there was no dated and numbered resolution or decision it alluded to. A search of the ERC Promulgations page also does not yield a published resolution or order pertaining to the same. The text of this resolution is important because this is what supposedly authorizes the finalization of the Decision in ERC Case No. 2010-069RC. Recall that 2010-069RC is the Petition for the 3RP ARR and P*S of Meralco, which supposedly would be finalized through a true-up regular reset process as provided for in its 6 July 2011 order.

4. ERC Case No. 2022-015 RC

This is the 5th Regulatory Period ARR and P*S application of Meralco. This was filed by Meralco in 2022, and pre-trial was completed in 2022. However, for some reason, no action was done from the conclusion of the pre-trial, until Meralco filed a Motion to Withdraw the said petition, on the ground that the Performance-Based Rate Setting Methodology of the ERC is forward looking, and that since two regulatory years lapsed- 2022 and 2023- their submissions are now defective. The ERC issued Orders setting the instant case for trial and requiring Meralco to file amended judicial affidavits to support its application. However, Meralco filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration seeking ERC approval to withdraw the application. In an Order dated October 30, 2024, the ERC granted this Motion for Partial Reconsideration and ordered the following:
a) The ERC shall motu propio initiate a Rule Making case to promulgate the RDWR;
b) The Regulatory Years for the 5th RP shall cover 2025 to 2028; and
c) Denying all other pending legal incidents filed by the Intervenors in this case.

As an additional point, it must be emphasized that in G.R. No. 226443, October 08 2019 the Supreme Court resolved NASECORE’s petition for certiorari against ERC and Meralco, and ruled that the Commission on Audit may be called on to audit Meralco’s submissions in a rate case. To our knowledge, this case remains pending due to a Motion for Reconsideration filed.

As we now face another round of marathon hearings that will draft the rules applicable to the 5RP, and actually kick off a regulatory reset for Meralco, it is important for the general public, as well as consumer rights advocates to participate and disentangle the messy pile of "spaghetti" that is the Meralco distribution rate.

23/09/2024

16/07/2024

Mula sa BIR Revenue District Office 25B - East Bulacan page:

GABAY PARA SA INVOICING REQUIREMENTS

Narito po ang mga Sample Invoices (Annex A1 at A2 & Annex B1-B6) base sa Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 77-2024.

Alaming ang iba't-ibang Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) patungkol sa invoicing requirements sa RMC No. 77-2024: https://bit.ly/3LqOZFa

15/07/2024

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Official Statement of Ret. ERC Commissioner Alfredo J. Non

Former ERC Commissioner Non Calls for Recomputation of MERALCO Rates in Court of Appeals

15 JULY 2024, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA – Retired Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) Commissioner Alfredo J. Non filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA) to call for the recomputation of the rates charged by MERALCO to consumers as resolved by ERC in its Decision dated June 22, 2024 and Order dated January 25, 2024.

Ex-commissioner and Petitioner Non alleges in the petition that the ERC Decision did not result in rates that may be considered just and reasonable based on standards set by the Supreme Court. This is because in resolving the petition filed by MERALCO, (a) the final rate adopted for the lapsed period was only ARBITRARILY determined contrary to the requirements of EPIRA; (b) ERC ignored other acceptable alternative approaches which are non-discriminatory; and (c) the Decision would be contrary to the promotion of consumer interests and, may lead to unjust enrichment on the part of MERALCO.

Further, the petition calls for a proper implementation of the true-up process where the actual weighted average tariff (AWAT) billed by MERALCO will be subject of an independent audit, as instead of just comparing the AWAT with reports submitted by MERALCO to ERC. There is no value in this verification because the comparison will be from one Meralco report to another.

To date, the decisions and orders of the ERC that required MERALCO to refund PHP 40.5 Billion to its consumers represents only about 25% of the estimated total over-recovery of about P160 billion (excluding interest), if the methodology proposed by Non is adopted.

“It is my position in the petition filed that the effects of the methodology used by ERC and MERALCO opens much distress for consumers. While balancing the interest of capital and consumers is important for a balanced economy, it necessitates that consumers are protected from exorbitant rates of collection and more so entitle them to rebates for overcharges that they are due,” shares Petitioner Non.

The petition submitted to the CA outlines errors in calculation, deviations from acceptable regulatory practices, and various lapses in the policy making and adjudication of the lapsed period.

In the Dissenting Opinions of ERC Chairperson Monalisa Dimalanta and Commissioner Catherine Maceda, they corroborated the allegations in the submitted petition when they penned, “It is important to note that the issue in the above cited case merely involved a factor or numerical to be applied in the computation of over-recoveries. The computation was invalidated considering such factors did not comply with due process requirements…. It, therefore, stands to reason that the primordial requirement of due process cannot and should not be ignored in the present case. In order to determine the process of determining the distribution wheeling rates for the so-called Lapsed Period, the AWAT Decision ought to be reconsidered, as sought in the Pending Motions.”

Atty. Lester Ople, counsel for Petitioner Non states, “This case is made more important because there are already bills in Congress on Meralco’s franchise renewal. It is my opinion that Congress will best serve the interests of the people if they do not rush renewing the franchise in light of ongoing consumer concerns on the rates of Meralco, among others. I also hope that Congress considers enacting a law that creates an office focused solely on consumer welfare advocacy, considering the complexity of the regulated sectors of the energy industry.”

Petitioner Non further shares, “The Filipino consumer deserves better and this is a case of transcendental importance. Not all consumers understand how to read their electric bills and they trust that the government agency tasked to regulate these companies to look out for their best interest. When the rights of the consumers are seemingly compromised by admitted lapses in due process requirements, we must start questioning the decisions of the regulatory agencies that was meant to protect consumer interests.”

FOR ALL MEDIA INQUIRIES:

OPLE LAW OFFICE – Makati
LG44 Cityland Pasong Tamo Inc., 6264 Calle Estacion,
Pio del Pilar, Makati City
[email protected] / [email protected]