G.R. No. 217158. March 12, 2019

**G.R. No. 217158. March 12, 2019** is a Decision 2019 is a landmark ruling or **leading case** by the Supreme Court of the Philippines *En Banc*.

## Case Details

* G.R. No. 217158. March 12, 2019
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2019/march2019/217158.pdf

* Francis Jardeleza
* Marvic Leonen Concurring Opinion
* Antonio Carpio "I concur to J. Leonen we do not abandon the doctrine of transcendental importance"

## Issues

Petitioner claims that the bundling of the Projects violates the constitutional provisions on monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade under Section 19, Article XII of the Constitution, which reads:

**Sec. 19. The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies whei1 the public interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition shall be allowed.**

 We now jointly discuss petitioner's remaining allegations, namely, that bundling of the Projects: (i) violates the anti-dummy law and the constitutional provision allegedly giving citizens the opportunity to invest in public utilities; (ii) is in grave abuse of discretion; and (iii) enables companies with shaky financial backgrounds to participate in the Projects.

For a  better understanding of our ruling today, we review below, in light of the Court's fundamental constitutional tasks, the constitutional and statutory evolution of the Court's original and concurrent jurisdiction, and its interplay with related doctrines, pronouncements, and even the Court's own rules, as follows:

1. The Court's original anti concurrent jurisdiction
2. Direct recourse to the Court under the Angara model
3. The transcendental importance doctrine
4. The Court is not a trier of facts
5. The doctrine of hierarchy of courts
6. The Court's expanded jurisdiction, social rights, and the Court's constitutional rule-making power under the 1987 Constitution
7. Exceptions to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts
8. Hierarchy of courts is  a constitutional imperative
9. The doctrine of hierarchy of courts as a filtering mechanism

## Info

* In short, we find that the grant of a concession agreement to

an entity, as a winning bidder, for the exclusive development, operation, and
maintenance of any or all of the Projects, does not by itself create a monopoly
violative of the provisions of the Constitution. Anglo-Fil Trading Corporation
teaches that exclusivity is inherent in the grant of a concession to a private
entity to deliver a public service, where Government chooses not to undertake
such service. Otherwise stated, while the grant may result in a monopoly, it is
a type of monopoly not violative of law. This is the essence of the policy decision
of the Government to enter into concessions with the private sector to build,
maintain and operate what would have otherwise been government-operated
services, such as airports. In any case, the law itself provides for built-in
protections to safeguard the public interest, foremost of which is to require
public bidding. Under the BOT Law, for example, a  private-public partnership (PPP) agreement
may be undertaken through public bidding, in cases of solicited proposals, or
through "Swiss challenge" (also known as comparative bidding), in
cases of unsolicited proposals.

* RA No. 10667, or the Philippine Competition Act, does not define

what constitutes a "monopoly." Instead, it prohibits one or more
entities which has/have acquired or achieved a "dominant position" in
a "relevant market" from "abusing" its dominant position.
In other words, an entity is not prohibited from, or held liable for
prosecution and punishment for, simply securing a dominant position in the
relevant market in which it operates. It is only when that entity engages in
conduct in abuse of its dominant position that it will be exposed to
prosecution and possible punishment.

* "Relevant market," on the other hand, refers to the

market in which a particular good or service is sold and which is a combination
of the relevant product market and the relevant geographic market.

* An entity with a dominant position in a relevant market is

deemed to have abused its dominant position if it engages in a conduct that
would substantially prevent, restrict, or lessen competition.

* Thus, for petitioner to succeed in asserting that such a prohibited situation legally obtains, it  must first establish, by evidence, that indeed:
	+ (1) the relevant market is that of airport development, maintenance, and operation (under the facts-based criteria enumerated in Section 24 of RA No. 10667);
	+ (2) the entity has achieved a dominant position (under the facts-based criteria enumerated in Section 27 of RA No. 10667) in that relevant market; and
	+ (3) the entity commits acts constituting abuse of dominant position (under the facts based criteria enumerated in Section 27 of RA No. 10667).

## Decision

**WHEREFORE**, **PREMISES CONSIDERED**, the petition is **DISMISSED**.

## Trivia

* \*Antonio Carpio concurrs Marvic Leonen
* \*Marvic Leonen dissents
* \*doctrines explained by the Supreme Court
* \*competition
* \*monopoly