Meralco rebuttal

This refers to the letter to the editor authored by Fernan J. Angeles, entitled, “The refund Meralco owes consumers: Long overdue,” published on the newspaper and website of the Philippine Daily Inquirer Opinion section. The entire letter is plainly libelous.

It is unfortunate that the letter has not been properly validated and has only propagated misinformation to the general public. Several of the letter’s central factual claims are contradicted by the Energy Regulatory Commission’s (ERC) own public record on this matter—specifically the ERC Decision dated June 16, 2022 in ERC Case No. 2020-043 RC, the very decision the letter cites as one of its sources—and by the fact that the refund amount mentioned in that decision has since been fully implemented and refunded.

The letter states that the ERC ordered a refund of roughly P14 billion in 2021, a further P4.8 billion in 2022, and an additional P21.77 billion in July 2022, for a total of P40.492 billion. It then asserts, without qualification: “deliberate refusal to refund,” “Meralco didn’t heed the order,” “still, no refund was made by Meralco,” and “not a dime has since been returned.” These categorical statements, couched as facts, are completely false, misleading, and full of malice.

First, Meralco has faithfully implemented every refund ordered by the ERC. Contrary to the allegation, the amounts of P14 billion, P4.8 billion and P21.77 billion, totaling P40.492 billion, that were subject of orders and the final decision under ERC Case No. 2020-43 RC, have been fully refunded by Meralco to its customers within the period of March 2021 to May 2023.

Had the author of the letter perused his electric bills during the relevant months, he would have found a line item labeled, “Dist True-Up,” which represents the refunds directed by the ERC under ERC Case No. 2020-043 RC.

The refund rate per customer class is clearly indicated in the subject orders and in the final decision. Hence, the author can easily verify if these refund rates were reflected in his bills during the relevant period. As such, the letter’s categorical assertion that “not a dime” had been returned is therefore an absolute lie based on the records it relied on.

This is not a matter of differing opinion or interpretation. The author could have easily checked with ERC or Meralco on the status of such refunds. In fact, Meralco regularly publishes monthly advisories to its customers on factors that affect their electricity bills, including the implementation of the refunds.

Second, the letter states that Meralco’s failure to appeal the decision is “an indication that they have been overcharging us for the last seven years.” This statement suggests that Meralco has deliberately collected amounts from consumers that was not allowed by the ERC, which imputes bad faith on the part of Meralco, its board of directors, and officers.

To set things straight, the refund was the result of the rate adjustment mechanism sanctioned by ERC, which aims to refund or collect the difference between the ERC approved maximum average price or overall distribution rate and the average of the ERC-approved actual residential, commercial, and industrial distribution rates billed to customers. In the case of Meralco, the approved rates for residential customers are higher than the commercial and industrial customers.

Thus, when the share of residential sales goes up, the actual average distribution rate naturally goes up, and vice versa. During the seven-year period from 2016 to 2022, Meralco’s residential sales were higher resulting in higher actual rate than the ERC-approved rate, which resulted in a refund. In contrast, had the residential sales went down for the same period, the same would have resulted in additional collection instead of refund. This same ERC-approved rate mechanism applies to all 22 privately owned distribution utilities and not just Meralco.

In fact, Meralco was the first private distribution utility to apply for the refund in December 2020—years ahead of ERC’s industry-wide directive. The ERC only directed other private distribution utilities to file their own applications either for refund or collection through ERC Resolution No. 23, Series of 2025 (Oct. 16, 2025), later amended by Resolution No. 01, Series of 2026. This is the reason why Meralco did not appeal from the decision, because it was Meralco that voluntarily applied for the refund in the first place, proof of Meralco’s good faith in complying with ERC directives.

Beyond the falsity of the statements, the framing, structure, and word choice of the letter was deliberately designed and staged to lead readers toward a specific, inflammatory conclusion. This framing, paired with language asking for consumers to file unfounded suits against Meralco or for the government to take over the Meralco’s franchise, shows the letter’s intent to create public anger against Meralco.

Running the article, even if couched as a letter opinion, without making proper verification falls short of the editorial care expected before publishing a letter replete with serious accusations against a named corporation and several prominent figures in the business industry.

—————–

Atty. Jose Ronald V. Valles is senior vice president and head regulatory management of Meralco.