Almero Miciano Law Office

23/12/2025

To our valued clients, please be informed of our schedule this holiday season. We wish everyone happy holidays and a prosperous New Year! 🎄

16/10/2025

To our valued clients, please be informed that our office will be closed tomorrow, 17 October 2025, in celebration of the Buglasan Festival of the Province of Negros Oriental.

We wish everyone a festive celebration! 🎉

06/10/2025

The (SC) has nullified the foreclosure of several properties after ruling that the interest charged on the unpaid bank loan was unfair and imposed without the borrower’s consent.

In a Resolution written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC’s Special Third Division granted the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Editha Ang and Violeta Fernandez, whose properties were foreclosed by United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) after they failed to pay a PHP 16-million loan.

Ang and Fernandez obtained a loan from UCPB. Based on the loan documents, however, UCPB was allowed to unilaterally adjust the interest rate every quarter based on market conditions.

When Ang and Fernandez failed to pay the total loan when it fell due, UCPB began to extrajudicially foreclose their properties.

Ang and Fernandez then filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to nullify the foreclosure sale, claiming that because the bank had the sole power to set and increase the interest rate, the rate was unfair and invalid.

The SC initially agreed that the interest rate was invalid but still upheld the foreclosure sale, ruling that the borrowers remained in default.

Upon reconsideration, however, the SC ruled that if the interest rate was unconscionable or imposed unilaterally by the lender, then any foreclosure that follows is also invalid.

The Court emphasized that under the Civil Code, contracts must be fair and mutually agreed upon. A contract that depends only on one party’s will is void.

In this case, the interest rate was solely determined by UCPB. Since the interest rate was invalid, the foreclosure of the properties was void.

The SC held that the borrowers should be given a chance to pay the loan at an interest rate agreed upon by both parties. Otherwise, they would be at the mercy of the lender and risk losing their property without a fair opportunity to settle their debt.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152735.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152719.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=152726.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

27/08/2025

“SC: Special Power of Attorney Ends Upon Death of Principal”

The (SC) has ruled that a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) automatically ceases upon the death of the person who granted it, and any acts carried out by the agent afterwards are void, unless covered by narrow exceptions under the law.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC’s Third Division held that Jessica Alova Uberas lost her authority under the SPA to act on behalf of her father, Meliton Alova, upon his death in 1998.

In 1998, Meliton executed an SPA in favor of Jessica over the subject conjugal property. He died later that year. Despite the death of his father, Jessica still used the same SPA in 2003 to execute a mortgage over the said property in favor of San Miguel Foods, Inc. (SMFI) to secure her loan from the company. Jessica failed to pay the loan and the property was foreclosed where SMFI emerged as the winning bidder.

Felicidad Alova and Decelyn Alova Pution, the widow and other daughter of Meliton, filed a case to nullify the mortgage and the foreclosure sale.

Both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) determined that Meliton’s death ended the agency. However, the RTC found that because the SPA had the conformity of Felicidad, Meliton’s wife, the mortgage was valid on her ½ share of the conjugal property. On the other hand, the CA declared the mortgage invalid, citing that it was not executed on behalf of Spouses Meliton and Felicidad.

SMFI appealed to the SC, which partly ruled in its favor. The Court upheld the agency’s termination but validated the mortgage and foreclosure sale with respect to Jessica’s undivided share in the property.

The SC explained that under an SPA, which is a contract of agency, a principal authorizes an agent to act on his or her behalf in transactions with third persons. Agency is personal, representative, and derivative, and it ends upon the death of either the principal or the agent.

Any act by the agent after the principal’s death is void, unless it falls under two Civil Code exceptions: (1) when the agency was for the parties’ common interest, and (2) when the agent, unaware of the death or agency’s end, contracted with a third party in good faith.

In this case, there was no showing that these exceptions were applicable. Jessica was fully aware of her father’s death, and the SPA was not made for their mutual benefit.

The SC also reiterated that for an agent’s act to bind the principal, the deed must clearly be made, signed, and sealed in the principal’s name.

Here, although Jessica was described in the beginning of the deed as Meliton’s attorney-in-fact, the mortgage was signed by Jessica in her personal capacity, as it was neither executed nor sealed in Meliton’s name, and without indication that she was acting as attorney-in-fact.

The Court also ruled that Meliton’s wife, Felicidad, was not bound as a principal under the SPA, as she only provided her marital conformity.

However, the Court clarified that the mortgage and foreclosure sale were not entirely void. Jessica automatically became a co-owner of the property after her father’s death. When she signed the mortgage, she encumbered her share in the property to secure her obligation to SMFI. Therefore, the mortgage and foreclosure sale were valid only for Jessica’s share.

The Court remanded the case to the RTC to determine Jessica’s share in the subject property and to annotate the shares of Meliton’s other heirs, and that of SMFI which acquired Jessica’s interest.

Read the full text of the press release at https://tinyurl.com/27t9k6vy

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260071-san-miguel-foods-inc-vs-felicidad-d-alova-and-decelyn-alova-pution/

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

20/08/2025

Please be informed that our office will be closed on August 21, 2025 (Ninoy Aquino Day, a special non-working day) and on August 25, 2025 (National Heroes Day, a regular holiday).

20/08/2025

Happiest birthday, Atty. Monica! Wishing you all the best always! 💜

11/06/2025

Please be advised that our office will be closed tomorrow, June 12, 2025, in observance of Philippine Independence Day (Araw ng Kalayaan).

Happy Independence Day! 🇵🇭

10/06/2025

05/06/2025

To our valued clients, please be advised that our office will be closed tomorrow, June 6, 2025, in observance of Eidul Adha (Feast of Sacrifice). We extend our warmest greetings to the Muslim community for a joyous and peaceful Eid!

20/05/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that when an accused appeals a criminal conviction, the entire case is reopened—allowing the court to review all its aspects and even impose a higher penalty.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 denied the appeal of an accused who had been convicted of r**e and unjust vexation. The SC affirmed the finding of r**e, but modified the finding of unjust vexation to attempted r**e, which carries a heavier penalty.

In 2013, the victim, then 16 years old, was sexually violated twice by her father, the accused ###. During the second incident, the victim kneed ### in the stomach as he was about to climb on top of her with his ge****ls exposed, forcing him to leave the room.

Convicted by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals of r**e for the first incident and unjust vexation for the second incident, ### appealed to the SC.

While the SC upheld ###’s conviction for r**e, it found him guilty of attempted r**e as regards the second incident, which carries a heavier penalty than unjust vexation.

The SC acknowledged that in several earlier decisions, it had limited its review of appeals to avoid violating the accused’s right against double jeopardy, which prohibits a person from being prosecuted or punished more than once for the same offense.

In the 2010 case of 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘷. 𝘉𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘢𝘵, the SC said it could no longer review the Court of Appeals’ decision to downgrade the conviction from attempted r**e to acts of lasciviousness, as this amounted to an acquittal of the more serious charge.

However, in the present case, the SC held that 𝘉𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘢𝘵 was incorrect in invoking the accused's right against double jeopardy.

When the accused appeals a conviction, they waive this right and open the entire case for review—including the possibility of a heavier penalty. In contrast, when it is the State that seeks to challenge an acquittal or request a harsher penalty, the accused may rightfully invoke the protection against double jeopardy.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/4nkwwe5c.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/3pmbffmt.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

20/05/2025

The has approved the Manual on the Rules on Unified Legal Aid Service (ULAS), which guides the implementation of the ULAS Rules that took effect on February 3, 2025. These Rules require covered lawyers to provide at least 60 hours of free legal aid service every three years to individuals who cannot afford adequate legal representation.

Under the Rules, the legal service is free for qualified beneficiaries — individuals who meet the eligibility criteria under the Rules and Manual.

The Manual supplements the Rules by outlining key procedures for compliance. Lawyers must create accounts on the ULAS Portal, an upcoming online platform, through which all reports, requests, and documents related to their pro bono work will be submitted. Lawyers may also opt to give financial contribution to the ULAS Fund instead of rendering service, and may do so generally for up to 50% of the required hours, but must remit payment before the end of the compliance period. Lawyers may also seek reimbursement for certain reasonable expenses, including transportation and document printing, subject to availability of funds and approval by the ULAS Office.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-approves-manual-on-the-rules-on-unified-legal-aid-service/.

Read the full text of the Manual on the Rules on ULAS at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/promulgated-ULAS-Manual-Reso-A.M.-No.-22-11-01-SC-re-The-Rules-on-ULAS.pdf.

Read the full text of the Rules on ULAS at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/22-11-01-sc-re-the-rules-on-unified-legal-aid-service/.

Visit the ULAS Microsite at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/ulas/.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/

20/05/2025

The (SC) has reiterated that once a job offer is accepted, an employer-employee relationship is already formed. Employers cannot just claim redundancy to justify terminating workers – they must present clear proof that a valid redundancy program is in place.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC’s Third Division found that Alltech Biotechnology (Alltech) illegally dismissed Paolo Landayan Aragones (Aragones) for failing to prove there was redundancy in the company.

Alltech had offered Aragones the position of Swine Technical Manager - Pacific, with a monthly salary of PHP 140,000. He accepted the offer and resigned from his previous job.

Before Aragones’ start date, however, Alltech informed him that the position had been abolished due to a global restructuring. Alltech offered him the amount of PHP 140,000 as goodwill payment. Aragones then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

The SC ruled that the employment contract was perfected as soon as Aragones signed the job offer. The delay in his start date merely postponed the obligations of Aragones to report for work, and of Alltech to pay his salary.

However, the SC emphasized that employers must provide solid evidence to justify terminating an employee due to redundancy, which Alltech failed to provide.

Alltech only submitted an affidavit from its Vice President stating that the company decided to shift from regional to local support to better respond to its customers’ needs.

The SC found the statement vague and unsupported by other documents. It did not explain how or why certain positions like Aragones’ were removed. It thus ordered Alltech to pay Aragones backwages and separation pay.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/38vp842u.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/2tfywuhu.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.