Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    Gamboa Vs Teves 2012

    Uploaded by

    Hoven Macasinag
    (1) Gamboa v. Teves etal. involved the indirect sale of shares in PLDT owned by PTIC to First Pacific, increasing foreign shareholdings in PLDT above the 40% limit in the 1987 Constitution. (2) The issue was whether the Court made an erroneous interpretation of the term 'capital' in its 2011 decision finding the sale unconstitutional. (3) The Court denied the motion for reconsideration, finding no error in its 2011 interpretation of 'capital' as referring to shares with voting rights and full beneficial ownership, implying effective control, in line with the Constitution's policy of a Filipino-controlled economy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gamboa Vs Teves 2012

    Uploaded by

    Hoven Macasinag
    15 views1 page
    (1) Gamboa v. Teves etal. involved the indirect sale of shares in PLDT owned by PTIC to First Pacific, increasing foreign shareholdings in PLDT above the 40% limit in the 1987 Constitution. (2) The issue was whether the Court made an erroneous interpretation of the term 'capital' in its 2011 decision finding the sale unconstitutional. (3) The Court denied the motion for reconsideration, finding no error in its 2011 interpretation of 'capital' as referring to shares with voting rights and full beneficial ownership, implying effective control, in line with the Constitution's policy of a Filipino-controlled economy.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    Gamboa vs Teves 2012

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    (1) Gamboa v. Teves etal. involved the indirect sale of shares in PLDT owned by PTIC to First Pacific, increasing foreign shareholdings in PLDT above the 40% limit in the 1987 Constitution. (2) The issue was whether the Court made an erroneous interpretation of the term 'capital' in its 2011 decision finding the sale unconstitutional. (3) The Court denied the motion for reconsideration, finding no error in its 2011 interpretation of 'capital' as referring to shares with voting rights and full beneficial ownership, implying effective control, in line with the Constitution's policy of a Filipino-controlled economy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    15 views1 page

    Gamboa Vs Teves 2012

    Uploaded by

    Hoven Macasinag
    (1) Gamboa v. Teves etal. involved the indirect sale of shares in PLDT owned by PTIC to First Pacific, increasing foreign shareholdings in PLDT above the 40% limit in the 1987 Constitution. (2) The issue was whether the Court made an erroneous interpretation of the term 'capital' in its 2011 decision finding the sale unconstitutional. (3) The Court denied the motion for reconsideration, finding no error in its 2011 interpretation of 'capital' as referring to shares with voting rights and full beneficial ownership, implying effective control, in line with the Constitution's policy of a Filipino-controlled economy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Gamboa v. Teves etal., GR No.

    176579, October 9, 2012


    Facts:
    The issue started when petitioner Gamboa questioned the indirect sale of shares
    involving almost 12 million shares of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company
    (PLDT) owned by PTIC to First Pacific. Thus, First Pacific’s common shareholdings in
    PLDT increased from 30.7 percent to 37 percent, thereby increasing the total common
    shareholdings of foreigners in PLDT to about 81.47%. The petitioner contends that it
    violates the Constitutional provision on filipinazation of public utility, stated in Section
    11, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which limits foreign ownership of the
    capital of a public utility to not more than 40%. Then, in 2011, the court ruled the case in
    favor of the petitioner, hence this new case, resolving the motion for reconsideration for
    the 2011 decision filed by the respondents.

    Issue: Whether or not the Court made an erroneous interpretation of the term ‘capital’ in
    its 2011 decision?

    Held/Reason: The Court said that the Constitution is clear in expressing its State policy
    of developing an economy‘effectively controlled’ by Filipinos. Asserting the ideals that
    our Constitution’s Preamble want to achieve, that is – to conserve and develop our
    patrimony , hence, the State should fortify a Filipino-controlled economy. In the 2011
    decision, the Court finds no wrong in the construction of the term ‘capital’ which refers to
    the ‘shares with voting rights, as well as with full beneficial ownership’ (Art. 12, sec. 10)
    which implies that the right to vote in the election of directors, coupled with benefits, is
    tantamount to an effective control.Therefore, the Court’s interpretation of the term
    ‘capital’ was not erroneous. Thus, the motion for reconsideration is denied.

    You might also like