Anda di halaman 1dari 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 Pacifics 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 Constitutions Preamble want to achieve, that is TO CONSERVE
AND DEVELOP OUR PATRIMONY , hence, the State should fortify a Filipinocontrolled 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 Courts interpretation of the term capital was not
erroneous. Thus, the motion for reconsideration is denied.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai