ASG Law

Category: Public Utilities

  • Controlling Interest: Defining

    Control is King: “Capital” in Public Utilities Means Voting Shares, Philippines SC Clarifies

    n

    TLDR: The Philippine Supreme Court, in Gamboa v. Teves, definitively ruled that the term “capital” in the context of foreign ownership restrictions for public utilities refers exclusively to shares with voting rights, ensuring Filipino control over these vital sectors. This landmark decision impacts how foreign investments are structured in Philippine public utilities.

    n

    G.R. No. 176579, June 28, 2011

    n

    INTRODUCTION

    n

    Imagine investing in a company only to realize you have no say in how it’s run. For foreign investors in Philippine public utilities, this was a looming concern until a landmark Supreme Court decision clarified a long-standing ambiguity. The Philippine Constitution limits foreign ownership in public utilities to 40% of their “capital.” But what exactly does “capital” mean? Does it encompass all shares, or just those that grant voting rights and control? This question was at the heart of Gamboa v. Teves, a case that redefined foreign investment rules in critical Philippine industries.

    n

    At its core, the case revolved around the sale of government-sequestered shares in the Philippine Telecommunications Investment Corporation (PTIC), a major stockholder of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT), to Metro Pacific Assets Holdings, Inc. (MPAH), a subsidiary of First Pacific, a Hong Kong-based firm. Petitioner Wilson Gamboa, a PLDT stockholder, argued that this sale would unconstitutionally increase foreign control over PLDT, a public utility, by pushing foreign common shareholdings beyond the 40% limit. The crucial legal question became: does “capital” in the Constitution refer to total shares or just voting shares?

    n

    LEGAL CONTEXT: THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE AND ITS INTERPRETATIONS

    n

    The 1987 Philippine Constitution, echoing its predecessors, enshrined the principle of Filipino control over public utilities. Section 11, Article XII explicitly states:

    n

    “No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines, at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens…”

    n

    This provision is rooted in economic nationalism, aiming to ensure that vital sectors of the Philippine economy remain under Filipino control. However, the Constitution left the definition of “capital” open to interpretation, leading to decades of uncertainty. Corporations issue different classes of shares, primarily common and preferred. Common shares typically carry voting rights, granting shareholders the power to elect directors and influence corporate decisions. Preferred shares, on the other hand, often lack voting rights but may offer preferential treatment in dividends or asset distribution.

    n

    The Corporation Code of the Philippines further complicates the matter by using “capital,” “capital stock,” and “outstanding capital stock” somewhat interchangeably, without clearly delineating whether “capital” should include all classes of shares or just voting shares. Adding to the ambiguity, the Foreign Investments Act of 1991 defined “Philippine national” partly based on “capital stock outstanding and entitled to vote,” suggesting a focus on voting shares for nationality determination. Government agencies and corporations themselves held differing views, with some including both common and preferred shares in their interpretation of “capital” for constitutional compliance.

    n

    CASE BREAKDOWN: GAMBOA CHALLENGES FOREIGN CONTROL OVER PLDT

    n

    Wilson Gamboa, acting as a PLDT stockholder, initiated the legal battle by filing a petition directly with the Supreme Court. He sought to prohibit the sale of PTIC shares, arguing it violated the constitutional foreign ownership limit. Gamboa contended that “capital,” for purposes of the 40% restriction, should be understood as referring solely to common or voting shares. He pointed out that with the PTIC share sale, foreign holdings of PLDT common shares would exceed 60%, effectively giving foreigners control of the public utility, despite Filipinos holding a majority of the total outstanding capital stock when including non-voting preferred shares.

    n

    The respondents, including government officials and PLDT executives, countered by arguing procedural infirmities in Gamboa’s petition. They emphasized that previous government interpretations and industry practices considered “capital” to encompass all share types, not just voting shares. Crucially, they did not explicitly refute Gamboa’s claim that foreigners would hold a majority of PLDT’s common shares after the sale.

    n

    The Supreme Court, acknowledging the petition’s procedural issues, opted to treat Gamboa’s petition for declaratory relief as a petition for mandamus, recognizing the transcendental importance of the constitutional issue. The Court framed the central issue as:

    n

    “[W]hether the term ‘capital’ in Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution refers to the total common shares only or to the total outstanding capital stock (combined total of common and non-voting preferred shares) of PLDT, a public utility.”

    n

    In a landmark decision penned by Justice Antonio Carpio, the Supreme Court sided with Gamboa. The Court declared that:

    n

    “[T]he term ‘capital’ in Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution refers only to shares of stock entitled to vote in the election of directors, and thus in the present case only to common shares, and not to the total outstanding capital stock (common and non-voting preferred shares).”

    n

    The Court reasoned that control over a corporation, particularly a public utility, is exercised through voting rights, which are predominantly attached to common shares. To include non-voting preferred shares in the definition of “capital” would allow foreigners to control public utilities while technically complying with the 40% limit based on total capital stock. The Court emphasized the intent of the Constitution’s framers to reserve control of public utilities to Filipinos, stating:

    n

    “To construe broadly the term ‘capital’ as the total outstanding capital stock, including both common and non-voting preferred shares, grossly contravenes the intent and letter of the Constitution that the ‘State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.’”

    n

    The Court directed the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to apply this definition of “capital” in assessing PLDT’s foreign ownership and to impose sanctions if a violation of the constitutional limit was found.

    n

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: FILIPINO CONTROL REAFFIRMED

    n

    Gamboa v. Teves has far-reaching implications for foreign investments in Philippine public utilities and other nationalized industries. It provides a definitive interpretation of “capital” in the Constitution, focusing on control rather than sheer equity value. This ruling ensures that Filipino citizens maintain effective control over public utilities, aligning with the Constitution’s nationalistic economic policies.

    n

    For businesses, particularly public utilities, this decision necessitates a careful review of their capitalization structure to ensure compliance. Companies must now calculate foreign ownership based on voting shares alone, potentially requiring restructuring to meet the 60/40 Filipino-foreign ownership ratio in terms of control. Foreign investors need to be particularly mindful of this ruling when structuring their investments in Philippine public utilities, focusing on strategic partnerships that respect Filipino control.

    n

    Key Lessons from Gamboa v. Teves:

    n

      n


  • Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: Ensuring Agency Expertise in Water Rate Disputes

    The Supreme Court ruled that consumers challenging a water rate increase must first exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to court action. This means that disagreements over water rates set by local water districts should initially be addressed through the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) and the National Water Resources Board (NWRB), as prescribed by law. This ruling underscores the importance of allowing specialized agencies to handle disputes within their expertise before judicial intervention, promoting efficiency and consistency in water rate regulation.

    Water Rate Hikes and Legal Hurdles: When Should Consumers Go to Court?

    In Merida, Leyte, a water rate increase implemented by the Merida Water District (MWD) sparked a legal battle initiated by concerned consumers. The consumers filed a Petition for Injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), seeking to stop the implementation of the new rates. They argued that the increase was excessive and violated established procedures, particularly those outlined in Letter of Instructions (LOI) No. 700. The MWD, however, countered that the consumers had failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not first appealing to the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) and the National Water Resources Board (NWRB) before seeking judicial intervention. The RTC initially sided with the consumers, but the Supreme Court ultimately reversed this decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

    The central legal principle at stake was whether the consumers could bypass the established administrative process and directly seek relief from the courts. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that parties must first pursue all available avenues of appeal within an administrative agency before seeking judicial intervention. This principle is rooted in the idea that administrative agencies possess specialized expertise and the authority to resolve disputes within their jurisdiction. By failing to exhaust these remedies, a party’s action is considered premature, potentially burdening the courts with cases that could be resolved through administrative channels.

    Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 198, as amended by P.D. No. 1479, lays out the specific administrative procedures for reviewing water rates established by local water districts. Section 11 of P.D. No. 198 provides a clear path for challenging water rates: the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) reviews the established rates. If a water concessionaire disagrees with the LWUA’s decision, they can appeal to the National Water Resources Board (NWRB). The NWRB’s decision is further appealable to the Office of the President. This multi-tiered system allows for expert review and potential rectification of any errors in the rate-setting process, reinforcing the need for administrative remedies to be exhausted.

    SEC. 11. The rates or charges established by such local district, after hearing shall have been conducted for the purpose, shall be subject to review by the Administration to establish compliance with the abovestated provisions. Said review of rates or charges shall be executory and enforceable after the lapse of seven calendar days from posting thereof in a public place in the locality of the water district, without prejudice to an appeal being taken therefrom by a water concessionaire to the [NWRB] whose decision thereon shall be appealable to the Office of the President.

    The respondents attempted to justify their direct recourse to the RTC by arguing that the water rate increase was patently illegal and a denial of due process. They claimed that the rate hike exceeded the allowable limit under LOI No. 700 and that the public hearing conducted by the MWD was inadequate. However, the Supreme Court found these arguments unconvincing. The Court emphasized that determining whether the rate increase was indeed illegal required a factual determination that should have been first addressed by the NWRB. The Court underscored the deference it gives to the factual findings of administrative agencies, especially concerning matters within their expertise. The consumers’ claim of denial of due process was similarly dismissed, as the Court noted that a public hearing had, in fact, been conducted.

    The Court clarified that while exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine exist, such as when an act is patently illegal or when due process is denied, these exceptions did not apply in this case. The alleged illegality of the water rate increase was not so obvious as to warrant bypassing the administrative process. Furthermore, the Court noted that the consumers were not denied the opportunity to be heard, as evidenced by the public hearing. The failure to strictly adhere to proper process is the core argument that the court disagreed with. By failing to file through the NWRB initially, there was an omission to provide an expert review on the situation.

    This decision reinforces the principle that courts should generally refrain from intervening in matters that fall within the competence of administrative agencies until those agencies have had the opportunity to address the issues. This promotes the efficient administration of justice and respects the expertise of specialized bodies. The Merida Water District case serves as a reminder that parties aggrieved by water rate increases must first exhaust the administrative remedies available to them before seeking recourse in the courts.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether consumers challenging a water rate increase could directly go to court without first exhausting administrative remedies by appealing to the LWUA and NWRB.
    What is the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies? This doctrine requires parties to pursue all available avenues of appeal within an administrative agency before seeking judicial intervention. It allows agencies to resolve disputes within their expertise first.
    What administrative remedies were available in this case? Consumers could have appealed the water rate increase to the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) and then to the National Water Resources Board (NWRB).
    Why did the Supreme Court emphasize exhausting administrative remedies? The Court emphasized that administrative agencies possess specialized expertise and should have the first opportunity to resolve disputes within their jurisdiction. This prevents premature judicial intervention.
    What was LOI No. 700’s role in the case? LOI No. 700 sets limits on water rate increases and requires public hearings. The consumers argued the increase violated LOI No. 700, but the Court said this needed to be determined by the NWRB first.
    What is the NWRB? The National Water Resources Board (NWRB) is an agency that, among other responsibilities, has the duty to address concerns surrounding the pricing concerns that surround local water districts.
    Are there exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine? Yes, exceptions exist when an act is patently illegal or when due process is denied. However, the Court found these exceptions did not apply in this specific case.
    What was the court’s final ruling? The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Merida Water District, holding that the consumers should have exhausted administrative remedies before seeking court intervention.

    This case serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of adhering to established legal procedures when challenging water rate increases. By respecting the expertise of administrative agencies, the legal system ensures that disputes are resolved efficiently and effectively.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Merida Water District v. Bacarro, G.R. No. 165993, September 30, 2008

  • COA Audit Not Mandatory for Utility Rate Changes: MERALCO Case Analysis

    Rate Adjustments for Public Utilities Can Proceed Without Mandatory COA Audit

    TLDR; The Supreme Court clarified that while the Commission on Audit (COA) has the authority to audit public utilities, a COA audit is not a mandatory prerequisite before regulatory bodies like the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) can approve rate adjustments for these utilities. This ruling ensures that regulatory processes are not unduly delayed and that rate adjustments can be addressed in a timely manner, while still allowing for COA oversight.

    G.R. NO. 166769 & G.R. NO. 166818

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine your monthly electricity bill suddenly increasing. You’d likely want to know why and if the increase is justified. Public utility rate adjustments, like those for electricity, significantly impact everyday Filipinos and businesses. This Supreme Court case, Manila Electric Company, Inc. v. Genaro Lualhati, tackles a crucial question: Can regulatory bodies approve these rate changes without a mandatory audit from the Commission on Audit (COA)? The answer has significant implications for the efficiency of utility regulation and consumer protection.

    At the heart of this case are consolidated petitions challenging a Court of Appeals decision that mandated a COA audit as a prerequisite for the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) to approve rate adjustments for Manila Electric Company, Inc. (MERALCO). MERALCO, seeking to revise its rate schedules, faced opposition from consumer groups who argued for a prior COA audit to validate MERALCO’s financial data. The Supreme Court ultimately stepped in to clarify the roles of the ERC and COA in rate-setting processes for public utilities.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: ERC’s Rate-Setting Power and COA’s Auditing Authority

    The legal framework governing public utility rates in the Philippines involves several key statutes and regulatory bodies. The Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA) established the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), granting it the power to regulate and fix rates for electric utilities. Section 41(a) of EPIRA explicitly states that the ERC shall “fix and regulate the rates, charges, tariffs… of distribution utilities.” This power is crucial for ensuring fair pricing and protecting consumers from unreasonable charges.

    On the other hand, the Commission on Audit (COA) is constitutionally mandated to audit government agencies and instrumentalities, and extends to entities receiving government subsidies or special privileges, including public utilities. Section 22, Chapter 4, Subtitle B, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 empowers COA to “examine and audit the books, records, and accounts of public utilities in connection with the fixing of rates of every nature, or in relation to the proceedings of the proper regulatory agencies, for purposes of determining franchise taxes.” This provision is cited by those who argue for mandatory COA audits in rate cases.

    However, the Supreme Court, in previous cases like Municipality of Daet v. Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc., had already addressed the advisory nature of COA audits in rate-setting. In Daet, the Court held that while a Government Auditing Office (GAO), now COA, audit could be beneficial, it was not a mandatory prerequisite for the then Board of Power and Waterworks (precursor to ERC) to approve rate adjustments. The Court emphasized that a GAO valuation was “merely advisory” and not binding on the regulatory body. The present MERALCO case revisits this precedent in light of the Administrative Code of 1987 and EPIRA.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: The Journey to the Supreme Court

    The legal battle began when MERALCO filed applications with the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB), later ERC, seeking approval for revised rate schedules and unbundled rates. These applications were met with opposition from various consumer groups, including Genaro Lualhati, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN), and others, who raised concerns about the accuracy of MERALCO’s financial data and advocated for a COA audit.

    Here’s a step-by-step look at the case’s progression:

    1. ERC Proceedings: The ERC conducted hearings on MERALCO’s applications, allowing oppositors to participate. After deliberation, the ERC approved MERALCO’s unbundled rates and adjusted rate base in a Decision and subsequent Order. Critically, the ERC itself scrutinized MERALCO’s submissions, disallowing certain items and adjusting the proposed rates.
    2. Court of Appeals Decision: Consumer groups appealed to the Court of Appeals, which sided with them. The appellate court annulled the ERC’s decision, asserting that a COA audit was a “necessary means to verify the documents, records and accounts submitted by MERALCO” and deemed it “an essential aspect of due process.” The Court of Appeals explicitly ordered the case remanded to the ERC with a directive for COA to conduct an audit before any rate approval.
    3. Supreme Court Review: Both MERALCO and the ERC separately petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in making a COA audit a mandatory prerequisite. They contended that such a requirement would unduly delay the rate-setting process and undermine the ERC’s regulatory authority.

    The Supreme Court, in its decision penned by Justice Chico-Nazario, reversed the Court of Appeals. The Court firmly stated, “The Court of Appeals is wrong.” It reiterated the principle established in Municipality of Daet, emphasizing that:

    “Without discounting the fact that public interest may be better served with a GAO audit of the applicant’s valuation of its properties and equipment, we nevertheless find nothing in the phraseology of the above-quoted provision that makes such audit mandatory or obligatory. A GAO valuation is merely advisory. It is neither final nor binding…”

    The Supreme Court clarified that Section 22 of the Administrative Code, while granting COA auditing authority over public utilities, does not mandate a COA audit as a precondition for rate adjustments. The Court found no conflict between the Administrative Code and Commonwealth Act No. 325 (the basis of the Daet ruling) that would necessitate a different interpretation. Furthermore, the Supreme Court highlighted the ERC’s own thorough review of MERALCO’s data, noting the ERC’s disallowances and adjustments to MERALCO’s proposals, demonstrating the ERC’s active role in protecting public interest.

    Despite upholding the ERC’s decision, the Supreme Court, acknowledging the significant public impact of utility rates and emphasizing social justice, directed the ERC to still seek COA’s assistance in conducting a “complete audit” of MERALCO’s books, but clarified that the provisionally approved rates could remain in effect while the audit was conducted. This nuanced ruling balanced regulatory efficiency with the need for financial scrutiny and consumer protection.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Rate Adjustments and Regulatory Efficiency

    This Supreme Court decision has significant practical implications for public utilities and regulatory processes in the Philippines. It affirms the ERC’s primary role in rate-setting and prevents mandatory COA audits from becoming bottlenecks in the process. Delaying rate adjustments due to mandatory audits could negatively impact the financial health of utilities, potentially affecting service quality and infrastructure investments. Conversely, without proper scrutiny, consumers could be subjected to unjustifiable rate increases.

    For public utilities, this ruling provides clarity and efficiency in the rate adjustment process. They can proceed with their applications before the ERC without the automatic requirement of a COA audit derailing timelines. However, utilities must still be prepared for potential COA audits, as the ERC retains the discretion to request them, and COA retains its auditing authority.

    For consumers and consumer advocacy groups, while a mandatory COA audit was not mandated, the Supreme Court’s directive for the ERC to still seek COA assistance offers a degree of assurance that financial oversight will be exercised. Consumers can continue to participate in ERC hearings and raise concerns about utility rates, knowing that the ERC has the power and responsibility to scrutinize rate applications.

    Key Lessons:

    • No Mandatory COA Audit Prerequisite: Public utility rate adjustments can be approved by the ERC without a mandatory COA audit beforehand.
    • ERC’s Primary Rate-Setting Role Affirmed: The ERC is the primary body responsible for fixing and regulating utility rates.
    • COA Auditing Authority Remains: COA retains its authority to audit public utilities, but such audits are not necessarily prerequisites for ERC action.
    • Balance of Efficiency and Scrutiny: The ruling seeks to balance efficient regulatory processes with the need for financial scrutiny and consumer protection in public utility rate-setting.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q1: Does this ruling mean COA can never audit public utilities regarding rates?

    A: No. COA still has the authority to audit public utilities. This ruling simply clarifies that a COA audit is not a mandatory requirement *before* the ERC can make decisions on rate adjustments. The ERC can still request COA audits, and COA can conduct audits independently.

    Q2: What is the role of the ERC in rate-setting if a COA audit isn’t mandatory?

    A: The ERC has the primary responsibility to review and approve or disapprove rate applications from public utilities. They conduct hearings, examine evidence, and make decisions based on their expertise and the law. This case affirms their power and expertise in this area.

    Q3: Does this make it easier for utility companies to raise rates?

    A: Not necessarily. The ERC is still obligated to ensure that any rate increases are just and reasonable. The ERC’s own scrutiny of MERALCO’s application, as highlighted in the case, demonstrates their role in protecting consumers. This ruling primarily streamlines the process by removing a potentially delaying mandatory audit step.

    Q4: What can consumers do if they feel their utility rates are too high?

    A: Consumers can participate in public hearings conducted by the ERC regarding rate applications. They can also form consumer groups to voice their concerns and challenge rate increases they believe are unjustified. Engaging with the ERC process is crucial for consumer advocacy.

    Q5: What is “rate unbundling” mentioned in the case?

    A: Rate unbundling is a process where the different components of electricity rates (like generation, transmission, distribution, etc.) are separated and made transparent to consumers. This allows for better understanding of where costs are coming from and can promote fairer pricing.

    Q6: What is the “rate base” and why is it important?

    A: The rate base is the value of a utility’s assets that are used to provide service to customers. It’s important because utilities are allowed to earn a reasonable return on their rate base. Disputes over what should be included in the rate base are common in rate cases, as seen in this MERALCO case.

    Q7: How does this case relate to social justice?

    A: The Supreme Court acknowledged the social justice aspect by directing the ERC to still seek COA’s assistance for a complete audit, even while upholding the rate increases. This shows a concern for ensuring rates are reasonable, especially for marginalized sectors of society who are most affected by utility costs.

    ASG Law specializes in energy law and public utilities regulation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Burden of Proof in Electricity Theft Cases: Meralco’s Duty to Substantiate Illegal Connection Claims

    When Accusations Spark Legal Battles: The Importance of Evidence in Electricity Theft Cases

    TLDR: This case underscores that utility companies bear the burden of proving electricity theft allegations with solid evidence, not mere presumptions. Consumers have rights, and accusations of illegal connections must be backed by facts that stand up to judicial scrutiny.

    G.R. NO. 109389, June 26, 2006: MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY VS. SPOUSES HUA KIM PENG AND ANGELITA RAMORAN

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine receiving a staggering bill for over a million pesos from your electricity provider, accusing you of years of electricity theft through illegal connections. This was the harsh reality faced by Spouses Hua Kim Peng and Angelita Ramoran when Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) demanded payment for “unregistered electricity consumption.” This case, Manila Electric Company vs. Spouses Hua Kim Peng and Angelita Ramoran, delves into the crucial issue of evidence in disputes between utility companies and consumers, particularly concerning allegations of electricity theft. At its heart, the case questions whether MERALCO sufficiently proved its claim that the Spouses Ramoran illegally tapped into their electricity supply, or if their demand was based on mere speculation.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: JUMPERS, BURDEN OF PROOF, AND DUE PROCESS

    At the center of this case is the accusation of using “jumpers.” In the context of electricity, a jumper refers to a bypass device illegally connected to an electric meter. Its purpose is to divert electricity, preventing it from being measured and thus avoiding payment for the full consumption. Utility companies like MERALCO are authorized to disconnect service for illegal connections under their franchise and service contracts, often citing public safety and revenue protection.

    However, the legal system mandates that accusations, especially those leading to penalties or significant financial demands, must be proven. This principle is known as the burden of proof. In civil cases like this one, the burden of proof lies with the party making the claim – in this instance, MERALCO. They must present substantial evidence to convince the court that their allegations are more likely true than not. This evidence cannot be based on speculation, conjecture, or mere suspicion.

    The Supreme Court, in the early case of US v. Genato, defined a jumper as a contrivance “used for the purpose of deflecting the current, thus preventing its passage through the meter and its consequent measurement.” This definition highlights the intent behind using a jumper: to evade accurate metering and payment.

    Furthermore, implicit in any legal proceeding is the concept of due process. Consumers are entitled to fair treatment, which includes proper notification of any violations, an opportunity to be heard, and evidence-based accusations. Utility companies cannot act arbitrarily or base their claims on flimsy grounds.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: A DAVID AND GOLIATH BATTLE OVER ELECTRICITY BILLS

    Spouses Hua Kim Peng and Angelita Ramoran owned small factories and residential units in Quezon City, all serviced by MERALCO under five separate accounts. They religiously paid their bills. In September 1988, a MERALCO inspection team visited their property while they were out. Upon their return, they were presented with “pink papers” alleging the discovery of jumpers connected to an idle meter base, accusing them of electricity theft.

    MERALCO then sent the Spouses Ramoran confidential letters demanding a staggering sum of P1,811,933.08 for “unregistered electricity consumption” over several years, threatening disconnection if they failed to pay within ten days. The Spouses Ramoran, through their lawyer, denied the allegations, asserting the jumper claim was a “fabrication” and requested another inspection to verify. MERALCO ignored this request and proceeded with their demand.

    Feeling unjustly accused and facing imminent disconnection, the Spouses Ramoran filed a Complaint for Injunction with Damages at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Quezon City. They sought to prevent MERALCO from cutting their power and demanded damages for the ordeal. MERALCO countered, insisting their inspectors found permanent jumpers, supported by photographs and laboratory tests, and that they were justified in demanding payment and threatening disconnection.

    The Initial Ruling: RTC Favors MERALCO

    Initially, the RTC sided with MERALCO, dismissing the Spouses Ramoran’s complaint and ordering them to pay the demanded amount plus interest and costs. However, this was not the end of the line.

    Court of Appeals Reversal: Pictures Speak Louder Than Words

    The Spouses Ramoran appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC decision. The CA meticulously examined the evidence, particularly the photographs presented by MERALCO itself. The appellate court pointed out critical flaws in MERALCO’s case:

    • Pictures Don’t Lie: The CA noted, “an assiduous examination of the pictures submitted by the defendant reveals that, contrary to its claim that jumpers were used by the plaintiffs, the pictures prove otherwise.” The photos showed the alleged jumpers were connected *after* the meters, meaning they would not have bypassed the meter to avoid registration.
    • Illogical Placement: The alleged jumpers were located outside the compound, in plain sight. The CA reasoned, “it is hard to believe that plaintiffs-appellants would install jumpers… particularly considering that the wires indicated as jumpers, are outside the compound of the plaintiffs and so obvious to any passerby.” If someone were to steal electricity, they would likely hide the illegal connections, not display them openly.
    • Consumption Patterns Contradict Claim: Crucially, the CA analyzed the Spouses Ramoran’s electricity consumption history before and after the alleged jumper removal. If jumpers were indeed present and removed, consumption should have significantly increased. However, the records showed no such increase; consumption remained consistent, and sometimes even decreased. The CA stated, “However, a reading of the 15-month bill history of plaintiffs-appellants shows that the electrical consumption is practically the same before and after September 24, 1988, and in most cases, even lower after September 24, 1988 than previous thereto.”

    Based on these points, the Court of Appeals concluded that MERALCO’s claims were “illogical, maliciously fabricated and in bad faith.” They ruled in favor of the Spouses Ramoran, permanently enjoining MERALCO from disconnecting their service and awarding moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.

    Supreme Court Affirms CA: Factual Findings Conclusive

    MERALCO then elevated the case to the Supreme Court (SC). However, the SC upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Supreme Court reiterated that in petitions for review on certiorari, they primarily address questions of law, not questions of fact. Since the CA’s findings were factual and supported by evidence, and because the RTC and CA had conflicting factual findings (an exception to the general rule), the SC reviewed the evidence and concurred with the CA. The SC emphasized that MERALCO failed to provide convincing evidence of illegal jumpers and that their differential billing was speculative and arbitrary.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: PROTECTING CONSUMER RIGHTS AGAINST UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS

    This case serves as a significant victory for consumers and a clear reminder to utility companies about the importance of due process and evidentiary burden. Here are key practical takeaways:

    For Consumers Facing Similar Accusations:

    • Demand Evidence: If a utility company accuses you of electricity theft, do not simply accept their claims. Demand to see the evidence they have gathered – inspection reports, photographs, laboratory results, consumption history analysis, etc.
    • Question Inconsistencies: Scrutinize the evidence for inconsistencies. As in this case, photographic evidence can sometimes contradict the accusations. Analyze your consumption patterns – do they support the claim of illegal tapping?
    • Seek Legal Counsel: If you believe you are unjustly accused, consult with a lawyer immediately. An attorney can help you understand your rights, gather evidence, and represent you in negotiations or legal proceedings.
    • Document Everything: Keep records of all communications with the utility company, including letters, emails, and bills. Document any inspections or visits to your property.

    For Utility Companies:

    • Thorough Investigations: Ensure inspections are thorough and conducted by trained personnel. Document findings meticulously with photographs, videos, and detailed reports.
    • Evidence-Based Claims: Base accusations of electricity theft on solid, verifiable evidence, not assumptions or speculation.
    • Fair Billing Practices: Differential billing should be rationally based and transparent. Explain clearly how the amount was calculated and provide supporting data.
    • Respect Consumer Rights: Adhere to due process. Provide consumers with clear notifications, opportunities to respond, and transparent procedures for dispute resolution.

    Key Lessons

    • Burden of Proof Matters: Utility companies must prove electricity theft accusations; consumers don’t have to disprove them.
    • Evidence is King: Solid, credible evidence is crucial. Photographs, consumption data, and expert analysis are more persuasive than mere allegations.
    • Consumer Rights are Protected: The legal system protects consumers from arbitrary and unfounded accusations by powerful corporations.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q1: What is an illegal jumper in electricity context?

    A: An illegal jumper is a wire or device used to bypass an electric meter, causing electricity consumption to go unrecorded. It’s essentially electricity theft.

    Q2: Can MERALCO disconnect my electricity immediately if they suspect illegal connection?

    A: While MERALCO has the right to disconnect for illegal connections, they must follow due process. Disconnection should not be arbitrary and should be based on reasonable grounds and proper procedures.

    Q3: What should I do if MERALCO accuses me of illegal electricity use?

    A: Stay calm, do not admit to anything without consulting a lawyer, demand to see their evidence, and seek legal advice immediately to understand your rights and options.

    Q4: What is “differential billing”?

    A: Differential billing is when a utility company charges a customer retroactively for estimated unbilled consumption, often due to alleged meter tampering or illegal connections. The calculation method must be rational and justifiable.

    Q5: What kind of evidence is considered strong proof of electricity theft?

    A: Strong evidence includes clear photographs or videos of illegal connections, expert testimony confirming meter tampering, significant and unexplained changes in consumption patterns after the alleged illegal connection was supposedly removed, and admissions from the consumer.

    Q6: Is it possible to win against a large company like MERALCO in court?

    A: Yes, as this case demonstrates. If you have a strong case and MERALCO’s evidence is weak or flawed, you can succeed in court. The key is to have legal representation and present your defense effectively.

    Q7: What are moral and exemplary damages awarded in this case?

    A: Moral damages compensate for mental anguish, anxiety, and suffering. Exemplary damages are meant to deter similar wrongful conduct in the future. They were awarded here because the court found MERALCO acted in bad faith and maliciously fabricated the jumper accusations.

    ASG Law specializes in litigation and disputes with public utilities. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Navigating Power Bill Disputes: Understanding Jurisdiction and Exhaustion of Remedies in Philippine Energy Law

    Power Bill Disputes? Know Your Agency: NEA Jurisdiction & Exhaustion of Remedies Explained

    n

    TLDR: In disputes over electric cooperative power bills in the Philippines, the National Electrification Administration (NEA) holds primary jurisdiction. Before heading to court, consumers must first exhaust all administrative remedies with the NEA. This case clarifies the crucial role of administrative agencies in specialized sectors like energy and the importance of following proper procedures before seeking judicial intervention.

    nn

    G.R. No. 109853, October 11, 2000

    nnn

    INTRODUCTION

    n

    Imagine receiving an electric bill that’s double what you usually pay, with charges you don’t understand. For many Filipinos, disputes over power bills are a frustrating reality. But where do you turn when your electric cooperative imposes charges you believe are illegal? This Supreme Court case, Province of Zamboanga del Norte v. Court of Appeals and Zamboanga del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc., provides crucial guidance, clarifying which government agency has the power to resolve these disputes and highlighting the vital legal principle of exhausting administrative remedies before going to court.

    nn

    In this case, the Province of Zamboanga del Norte challenged the Zamboanga del Norte Electric Cooperative (ZANECO)’s increased power rates, arguing they were illegal and imposed without proper authority. The province initially sought relief from the Regional Trial Court (RTC), but the Supreme Court ultimately affirmed that such complaints fall under the primary jurisdiction of the National Electrification Administration (NEA). This decision underscores the importance of understanding the specific roles of different government agencies and following established administrative procedures in the Philippines.

    nn

    LEGAL CONTEXT: NEA’s Mandate and Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

    nn

    The Philippine government has established specialized agencies to regulate key sectors, including energy. For electric cooperatives, the National Electrification Administration (NEA) is the primary regulatory body. Presidential Decree No. 269, which created the NEA, grants it broad powers over electric cooperatives, including the authority to:

    nn

    “…supervise and control all electric cooperatives x x x and to issue orders, rules and regulations and to conduct investigations, referenda and other similar actions in all matters affecting electric cooperatives…”

    nn

    This supervisory power explicitly extends to rates and charges imposed by electric cooperatives. Section 16(o) of P.D. No. 269 empowers electric cooperatives to:

    nn

    “Fix, maintain, implement, and collect rates, fees, rents, tolls, and other charges and terms and conditions for service, but such rates, fees, rents, tolls, and other charges and the terms and conditions for service shall be in furtherance of the purposes and in conformity with provisions of this Decree.”

    nn

    However, this power to fix rates is not absolute and is subject to NEA’s oversight to ensure they are “in furtherance of the purposes and in conformity” with P.D. No. 269. This regulatory framework exists alongside the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB), created by Executive Order No. 172, which has jurisdiction over fixing and regulating prices of petroleum products. The crucial distinction, as clarified in this case, is that NEA specifically regulates electric cooperatives, while the ERB’s mandate is different.

    nn

    Adding another layer is the legal doctrine of “exhaustion of administrative remedies.” This principle dictates that if an administrative remedy is available, parties must pursue it fully before resorting to court action. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld this doctrine, emphasizing that courts should defer to administrative agencies’ expertise and allow them the first opportunity to resolve disputes within their specialized areas. Prematurely seeking court intervention can lead to the dismissal of a case.

    nn

    CASE BREAKDOWN: Zamboanga del Norte vs. ZANECO

    nn

    The dispute began when ZANECO, the electric cooperative serving Zamboanga del Norte, increased its Fuel Compensating Charge (FCC) and Interim Adjustment in power bills issued in May and June 1991. The Province of Zamboanga del Norte, representing its constituents, filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging that these increases were “illegal” and lacked approval from the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB). The province sought a preliminary injunction to stop ZANECO from collecting the increased charges.

    nn

    ZANECO countered, arguing that the RTC lacked jurisdiction, asserting that the NEA, not the ERB or the RTC, had jurisdiction over rate disputes involving electric cooperatives. Despite ZANECO’s jurisdictional challenge, the RTC issued a preliminary injunction against ZANECO. The RTC further denied ZANECO’s motion to dismiss, reasoning that the issue was not about monetary claims (pecuniary estimation) but the “nullity of charges,” placing it within the RTC’s jurisdiction. The RTC also considered it “futile” to approach the NEA or NPC, believing the charges originated from these agencies anyway.

    nn

    ZANECO appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC’s orders. The CA sided with ZANECO, ruling that the NEA indeed had primary jurisdiction. The Province then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the ERB had jurisdiction because the FCC related to fuel costs, which fell under the ERB’s purview of regulating petroleum product prices. The province also argued for exceptions to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine, citing the alleged “unconstitutionality and arbitrariness” of the charges.

    nn

    However, the Supreme Court sided with the Court of Appeals and ZANECO. Justice Pardo, writing for the Court, clarified the central issue:

    nn

    “Precisely, the complaint was for ‘Illegal Collection of Power Bills.’ Since the complaint is one questioning the increase in the power rates, the proper body to investigate the case is the NEA.”

    nn

    The Court emphasized that while fuel costs were a factor, the complaint was fundamentally about the legality of power rates charged by an electric cooperative to its consumers – a matter squarely within the NEA’s expertise and mandate. The Supreme Court further stated:

    nn

    “Thus, a party questioning the rates imposed by an electric cooperative may file a complaint with the NEA as it is empowered to conduct hearings and investigations and issue such orders on the rates that may be charged. Consequently, the case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the ERB.”

    nn

    The Court also rejected the province’s arguments for bypassing administrative remedies. It reiterated the doctrine’s importance and found no applicable exceptions in this case. The mere allegation of “arbitrariness” was insufficient to justify direct court intervention. Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, ordering the RTC to dismiss the province’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

    nn

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: NEA First, Courts Later

    nn

    This case serves as a clear guide for resolving power bill disputes with electric cooperatives in the Philippines. It firmly establishes the NEA as the primary forum for such complaints. Consumers and local government units disputing power rate increases by electric cooperatives must first file their grievances with the NEA. Only after exhausting all available administrative remedies within the NEA can parties potentially seek judicial review in the Court of Appeals, if necessary.

    nn

    For electric cooperatives, this ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to NEA regulations and guidelines when setting and adjusting power rates. It underscores the NEA’s supervisory authority and the need for cooperatives to justify rate changes through proper administrative channels.

    nn

    Ignoring the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine can lead to wasted time and resources in court, as demonstrated in this case. The RTC’s initial intervention was ultimately deemed improper, delaying the resolution and requiring appeals to higher courts. Following the correct procedural path from the outset – starting with the NEA – is crucial for efficient and effective dispute resolution.

    nn

    Key Lessons:

    n

      n

    • NEA Jurisdiction: The National Electrification Administration (NEA) has primary jurisdiction over complaints regarding power rates and charges imposed by electric cooperatives.

      • n

    • Exhaust Administrative Remedies: Before going to court, exhaust all administrative remedies available with the NEA. File your complaints and follow NEA’s procedures first.

      • n

    • Understand Agency Roles: Differentiate between the NEA and ERB. NEA regulates electric cooperatives’ rates; ERB regulates petroleum product prices.

      • n

    • Exceptions are Limited: Exceptions to exhaustion of remedies are narrow and rarely apply. Mere allegations of illegality or arbitrariness are generally insufficient.

      • n

    • Efficiency and Expertise: Administrative agencies like NEA are designed to handle specialized disputes efficiently and with technical expertise. Utilize these resources.

      • n

    nn

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    nn

    Q1: What is the National Electrification Administration (NEA)?

    n

    A: The NEA is a government agency in the Philippines tasked with the supervision and control of all electric cooperatives in the country. It ensures that electric cooperatives operate efficiently and provide reliable and affordable electricity to their consumers.

    nn

    Q2: What kind of complaints should be filed with the NEA?

    n

    A: Complaints related to power rates, billing disputes, service quality, and other operational issues of electric cooperatives should be filed with the NEA.

    nn

    Q3: Can I go directly to court if I have a problem with my electric bill from a cooperative?

    n

    A: Generally, no. You must first exhaust all administrative remedies with the NEA before you can seek court intervention. Failing to do so may result in your case being dismissed.

    nn

    Q4: What is the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB)’s role in power rates?

    n

    A: The ERB (now the Energy Regulatory Commission or ERC) regulates the prices of petroleum products and has jurisdiction over certain aspects of the energy sector, but the NEA specifically regulates electric cooperatives. This case clarifies NEA’s primary role concerning electric cooperative rates.

    nn

    Q5: What does

  • Electrocution and Liability: Understanding Negligence and Damages in Philippine Law

    When Negligence Leads to Electrocution: Holding Power Companies Accountable

    TLDR: This landmark Supreme Court case clarifies that electric cooperatives have a high duty of care to ensure public safety. Negligence in maintaining electrical lines, especially failing to meet safety standards like proper vertical clearance and insulation, can lead to significant liability for damages, including loss of income, moral damages, and exemplary damages in cases of electrocution.

    G.R. No. 127326, December 23, 1999

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine a routine morning at a bustling marketplace, suddenly shattered by tragedy. This was the reality for Jose Bernardo, a meat vendor in Baguio City, who was electrocuted while simply trying to unload meat from a jeepney. His death, while accidental, was far from unavoidable. The Supreme Court case of Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 127326) delves into the crucial issue of negligence and liability in electrocution cases, particularly focusing on the responsibilities of electric cooperatives in ensuring public safety. At the heart of this case lies a fundamental question: Who is accountable when faulty electrical infrastructure leads to fatal accidents?

    LEGAL CONTEXT: QUASI-DELICT AND NEGLIGENCE UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW

    Philippine law, rooted in the principles of quasi-delict, as outlined in Article 2176 of the Civil Code, establishes the foundation for liability in cases like Jose Bernardo’s electrocution. This article states:

    “Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.”

    In essence, this means that if someone’s negligence causes harm to another, even without a prior contract, they are legally obligated to compensate for the damages. Negligence, in a legal context, is defined as the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in a similar situation. For entities like Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BENECO), which operate in the public utility sector, this standard of care is particularly high. They are expected to adhere strictly to safety regulations, such as the Philippine Electrical Code, to protect the public from harm.

    The concept of proximate cause is also central to determining liability. Proximate cause refers to the direct and immediate cause of an injury, without which the injury would not have occurred. In electrocution cases, establishing proximate cause often involves tracing the sequence of events leading to the accident and identifying the negligent act or omission that directly resulted in the harm.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: BENECO’S BREACH OF DUTY AND THE TRAGIC ELECTROCUTION

    The narrative of Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Court of Appeals unfolds with tragic simplicity. On January 14, 1985, Jose Bernardo, a meat vendor, was at the Baguio City meat market. As he reached for the handlebars of a jeepney to unload meat, disaster struck. The jeepney’s antenna had become entangled with an exposed and uninsulated electric wire belonging to BENECO. Jose was instantly electrocuted and died shortly after.

    The legal battle began when Caridad O. Bernardo, Jose’s widow, filed a complaint against BENECO on behalf of her minor children. The Regional Trial Court of Baguio City initially ruled in favor of the Bernardos. BENECO appealed to the Court of Appeals, attempting to shift blame to the jeepney owner, Guillermo Canave, Jr., arguing that Canave’s parking was the proximate cause of the incident.

    However, both the Court of Appeals and ultimately the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision, firmly establishing BENECO’s liability. The courts meticulously examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of Virgilio Cerezo, a registered master electrician, who highlighted several critical violations of the Philippine Electrical Code by BENECO:

    • Insufficient Vertical Clearance: The electric wires were installed at a height of only 8-9 feet, far below the minimum required 14 feet for areas accessible to vehicles.
    • Exposed and Uninsulated Wires: The splicing point between the service drop line and the service entrance conductor was not properly insulated and was left exposed, posing a significant hazard.

    The Supreme Court emphasized BENECO’s gross negligence, stating:

    “There is no question that as an electric cooperative holding the exclusive franchise in supplying electric power to the towns of Benguet province, its primordial concern is not only to distribute electricity to its subscribers but also to ensure the safety of the public by the proper maintenance and upkeep of its facilities. It is clear to us then that BENECO was grossly negligent in leaving unprotected and uninsulated the splicing point between the service drop line and the service entrance conductor…”

    The Court dismissed BENECO’s attempt to blame Canave, reasoning that parking in the area, even if not a designated parking zone, was not inherently negligent and would not have resulted in the tragedy had BENECO adhered to safety standards. The Supreme Court underscored that BENECO’s negligence was the proximate cause of Jose Bernardo’s death.

    Regarding damages, while the trial court initially awarded compensation, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court modified some amounts. Notably, the Supreme Court adjusted the computation of net income loss, reducing it to P675,000.00 based on a revised life expectancy and a more reasonable assessment of the deceased’s earning capacity as a meat vendor. Moral damages were also adjusted to P50,000.00. Exemplary damages and attorney’s fees were affirmed.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: SAFETY FIRST AND THE DUTY OF CARE

    The BENECO case sends a strong message to all public utilities, particularly electric cooperatives: public safety is paramount. This ruling reinforces the high duty of care expected of entities that handle inherently dangerous services like electricity distribution. Failure to comply with safety codes and maintain infrastructure diligently can have severe legal and financial repercussions.

    For businesses and property owners, this case highlights the importance of vigilance regarding electrical installations near their premises. It underscores the need to report any observed electrical hazards, such as low-hanging wires or exposed connections, to the relevant utility companies promptly.

    Key Lessons from the BENECO Case:

    • Strict Adherence to Safety Codes: Electric cooperatives and similar entities must rigorously comply with the Philippine Electrical Code and other relevant safety standards.
    • Proactive Maintenance: Regular inspection and maintenance of electrical infrastructure are not optional but a legal and ethical obligation.
    • Public Safety as Priority: Profitability and efficiency should never compromise public safety.
    • Accountability for Negligence: Negligence leading to harm will result in significant liability for damages, including compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages.
    • Importance of Documentation: Clear records of inspections, maintenance, and compliance with safety standards are crucial for defense in potential liability cases.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q: What is quasi-delict?

    A: Quasi-delict is a legal concept in Philippine law referring to acts or omissions that cause damage to another due to fault or negligence, where there is no pre-existing contractual relationship between the parties. It’s a basis for civil liability for damages.

    Q: What is considered negligence in electrocution cases?

    A: Negligence in electrocution cases can include failure to maintain proper vertical clearance of power lines, using uninsulated or exposed wires, failing to repair known hazards, and not adhering to safety standards like the Philippine Electrical Code.

    Q: What kind of damages can be awarded in electrocution cases due to negligence?

    A: Damages can include indemnity for death, compensation for loss of earning capacity (net income loss), moral damages for emotional distress, exemplary damages to deter gross negligence, and attorney’s fees.

    Q: What is the Philippine Electrical Code, and why is it important?

    A: The Philippine Electrical Code sets the standards for safe electrical installations and practices in the Philippines. Compliance is crucial for preventing electrical accidents and ensuring public safety. Violations of this code can be strong evidence of negligence.

    Q: Can an electric cooperative be held liable even if a third party contributed to the accident?

    A: Yes, if the electric cooperative’s negligence is determined to be the proximate cause of the accident, they can be held liable, even if a third party’s actions were also a factor. The focus is on whether the accident would have occurred without the cooperative’s negligence.

    Q: What should I do if I see exposed or low-hanging electrical wires?

    A: Immediately report the hazard to the electric cooperative or your local power provider. Stay away from the wires and warn others to do the same. Do not attempt to handle or move the wires yourself.

    Q: How is loss of earning capacity calculated in death cases?

    A: It’s typically calculated based on the deceased’s life expectancy, gross annual income, and necessary living expenses. The formula often used involves two-thirds of the difference between 80 and the deceased’s age, multiplied by their net annual income.

    ASG Law specializes in personal injury and damages claims, including electrocution cases arising from negligence. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.