Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    Manila Prince Hotel V

    Uploaded by

    Leizl Aldave Villapando
    This case discusses whether a Filipino company or a Malaysian company should be given preference to acquire 51% of shares in the Manila Hotel Corporation under the Philippine Constitution. The Constitution states there should be preference given to qualified Filipinos for businesses related to the national economy and patrimony. The petitioner argues that acquiring majority shares of the Manila Hotel qualifies for this constitutional protection, while respondents argue the provision requires an implementing law. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining if the hotel business falls under the national economy and patrimony.

    Copyright:

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

    Manila Prince Hotel V

    Uploaded by

    Leizl Aldave Villapando
    11 views1 page
    This case discusses whether a Filipino company or a Malaysian company should be given preference to acquire 51% of shares in the Manila Hotel Corporation under the Philippine Constitution. The Constitution states there should be preference given to qualified Filipinos for businesses related to the national economy and patrimony. The petitioner argues that acquiring majority shares of the Manila Hotel qualifies for this constitutional protection, while respondents argue the provision requires an implementing law. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining if the hotel business falls under the national economy and patrimony.

    Original Description:

    LV

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses whether a Filipino company or a Malaysian company should be given preference to acquire 51% of shares in the Manila Hotel Corporation under the Philippine Constitution. The Constitution states there should be preference given to qualified Filipinos for businesses related to the national economy and patrimony. The petitioner argues that acquiring majority shares of the Manila Hotel qualifies for this constitutional protection, while respondents argue the provision requires an implementing law. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining if the hotel business falls under the national economy and patrimony.

    Copyright:

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

    Manila Prince Hotel V

    Uploaded by

    Leizl Aldave Villapando
    This case discusses whether a Filipino company or a Malaysian company should be given preference to acquire 51% of shares in the Manila Hotel Corporation under the Philippine Constitution. The Constitution states there should be preference given to qualified Filipinos for businesses related to the national economy and patrimony. The petitioner argues that acquiring majority shares of the Manila Hotel qualifies for this constitutional protection, while respondents argue the provision requires an implementing law. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining if the hotel business falls under the national economy and patrimony.

    Copyright:

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

    Manila Prince Hotel v.

    GSIS (1997) sacredness of independence and its power and capacity to


    The FiIipino First Policy enshrined in the 1987 release the full potential of the Filipino people. To all intents
    Constitution, i.e., in the grant of rights, privileges, and and purposes, it has become a part of the national
    concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, patrimony.6 Petitioner also argues that since 51% of the
    the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos,1 is in shares of the MHC carries with it the ownership of the
    oked by petitioner in its bid to acquire 51% of the shares of business of the hotel which is owned by respondent GSIS, a
    the Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC) which owns the historic government-owned and controlled corporation, the hotel
    Manila Hotel. Opposing, respondents maintain that the business of respondent GSIS being a part of the tourism
    provision is not self-executing but requires an implementing industry is unquestionably a part of the national economy.
    legislation for its enforcement. Corollarily, they ask whether Thus, any transaction involving 51% of the shares of stock of
    the 51% shares form part of the national economy and the MHC is clearly covered by the term national economy, to
    patrimony covered by the protective mantle of the which Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, 1987 Constitution,
    Constitution. applies.

    Facts: The controversy arose when respondent Government It is also the thesis of petitioner that since Manila Hotel is
    Service Insurance System (GSIS), pursuant to the privatization part of the national patrimony and its business also
    program of the Philippine Government under Proclamation unquestionably part of the national economy petitioner
    No. 50 dated 8 December 1986, decided to sell through public should be preferred after it has matched the bid offer of the
    bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and outstanding shares of Malaysian firm. For the bidding rules mandate that if for any
    respondent MHC. The winning bidder, or the eventual reason, the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of
    "strategic partner," is to provide management expertise Shares, GSIS may offer this to the other Qualified Bidders that
    and/or an international marketing/reservation system, and have validly submitted bids provided that these Qualified
    financial support to strengthen the profitability and Bidders are willing to match the highest bid in terms of price
    performance of the Manila Hotel. In a close bidding held on per share.
    18 September 1995 only 2 bidders participated: petitioner
    Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation, Respondents except. They maintain that: First, Sec. 10,
    which offered to buy 51% of the MHC or 15,300,000 shares at second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution is merely a
    P41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, statement of principle and policy since it is not a self-
    with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for the executing provision and requires implementing legislation(s) .
    same number of shares at P44.00 per share, or P2.42 more . . Thus, for the said provision to Operate, there must be
    than the bid of petitioner. existing laws "to lay down conditions under which business
    may be done.
    Pending the declaration of Renong Berhad as the winning
    bidder/strategic partner and the execution of the necessary
    contracts, petitioner in a letter to respondent GSIS dated 28
    September 1995 matched the bid price of P44.00 per share
    tendered by Renong Berhad.4 In a subsequent letter dated 10
    October 1995 petitioner sent a manager's check issued by
    Philtrust Bank for Thirty-three Million Pesos (P33.000.000.00)
    as Bid Security to match the bid of the Malaysian Group,
    Messrs. Renong Berhad . . . which respondent GSIS refused to
    accept.

    On 17 October 1995, perhaps apprehensive that respondent


    GSIS has disregarded the tender of the matching bid and that
    the sale of 51% of the MHC may be hastened by respondent
    GSIS and consummated with Renong Berhad, petitioner came
    to this Court on prohibition and mandamus. On 18 October
    1995 the Court issued a temporary restraining order
    enjoining respondents from perfecting and consummating
    the sale to the Malaysian firm.

    In the main, petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII,
    of the 1987 Constitution and submits that the Manila Hotel
    has been identified with the Filipino nation and has practically
    become a historical monument which reflects the vibrancy of
    Philippine heritage and culture. It is a proud legacy of an
    earlier generation of Filipinos who believed in the nobility and

    You might also like