About Us​

BPLaw has handled cases that have established precedents. It handled Marquez vs. Comelec, where the Supreme Court held that one running for a political office is not a fugitive from justice if he leaves the place where a subsequent criminal prosecution was initiated, before the initiation of such proceedings.

It participated as counsel for the intervenor in Bengzon, Jr. vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee where it was established that the Senate cannot investigate an individual already being investigated by the Office of the Ombudsman. In Chung Ka Bio, et al., vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., the Firm was able to obtain a ruling that under certain circumstances, the life of a corporation may be deemed to be continued despite failure to organize. In Sobrejuanite vs. ASB Development Corporation, it obtained the ruling for its client that executing a final judgment cannot be implemented against a corporation under corporate rehabilitation. In Vda. De Navarro, et al., vs. Taroma, et al., it was able to obtain for its clients the ruling that one cannot avail of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court at the same time that it is seeking relief from the Court of Appeals.

It represented MIA-NAIA Service Operators in MIA-NAIA Service Operators vs. PIATCO, et al., where it was able to obtain a ruling that the Ombudsman commits an error if he dismisses a case without affording the complainant a full and complete preliminary investigation. In Toralba, et al., vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., it obtained the ruling for its clients that the respondent is entitled to a full and complete preliminary investigation. In BF Homes, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., it obtained for BF Homes, its client, the ruling that the stay order issued in a rehabilitation case is effective from its date of issue until the corporation is fully rehabilitated.

The Firm is proud to claim the distinction of introducing into Philippine Corporate Rehabilitation practice the ideas of stay, cram down, and white knight.