Name: Alpha Holy F.

Guerrero Subject: CCHTM 3105

Year & Section: BSTM 3-2 Activity: Quiz No. 1

LEGAL ASPECT IN HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM

Question No. 1
In your own words, discuss how corporations sell their shares of stock as an exit strategy. Do you think
Ayala Hotels Corporation did the right decision? Why? What are the possible reasons for selling a
profitable property in a prime location like Oakwood? Do you think the property will be more profitable
with the brand Ascott after the takeover? Justify your answer.

ANSWER:

A business exit strategy is an entrepreneur's strategic plan to sell his or her  ownership in a company
to investors or another company. An exit strategy gives a business owner a way to reduce or liquidate
his stake in a business and, if the business is successful, make a substantial profit. If the business is not
successful, an exit strategy (or "exit plan") enables the entrepreneur to limit losses. An exit strategy may
also be used by an investor such as a venture capitalist in order to plan for a cash-out of an investment.
For Ayala selling its real estate assets is not a loss of property for them, over all it is in did a winning
agreement as it was sold by Oakwood Premier brand that acknowledge by the Philippine DOT when it
come to its exceptional achievement in hospitality. Ayala must be relieve with their branding and that will
continue to grow the property. Probably the reason for selling a profitable property of Ayala is because of
the company plan to divest some of its real estate property that are no longer considered strategic
positions for their group. The company might be planning to develop more building to suit office building
outside their business district in Makati to broaden their market and reach the growing market of
overseas-based Filipinos. Just like the property being sold. Ayala will continue to launch and create
residential projects for middle income and as a strategy to a mass housing market project. I believe that
Ascott brand will continue to create a name in the market as it was handled by a skilled and big-time
investors and leader to run the business.

Question No. 2
What was the right thing to do? Why? What was the verdict of the court? Do you agree? Why? What was
the basis of the court's decision?

ANSWER:

 In my opinion Imelda Marcos must get a permission to travel due to being sick and allowing her
to travel to get the medical treatment that she is needing while the case is still in the process of
pending in the court. Imelda Marcos promised the anti-corruption court to be back on September
14 after she leave the country on August 31 and get the medical treatment, she needs in
Hongkong and China. Meaning she is only traveling to get a heath treatment and not escaping
from the law that she is facing. The verdict of the court gave Imelda permission to travel to Hong
Kong in February 2006 for medical reasons which I strongly agree with the decision of the court.
In this case Imelda Marcos is not detention but she must get court permission to leave the country
 legally as provided by the law. But she postponed the trip saying she preferred instead to stay at
home and donate a 630,000 pesos ($13,490) travel bond to victims of a landslide during that time
of calamity hits in the Philippines. For the second time Imelda Marcos asked the court a
permission to travel to Hong Kong again in September 2006, but the court denied her request due
to a legal technicality. According to the Section 6, Article III of the constitution our right to travel
is held to be part and parcel of our freedom of movement guaranteed under our Constitution.
Nevertheless, this freedom is not absolute, and may be restricted in the interest of national
security, public safety or public health. The Supreme Court had clarified that holding an accused
in a criminal case within reach of the courts by preventing his departure from the Philippines is
considered a valid restriction on his right to travel so that he may be dealt with in accordance with
law. While the rule then was clear that a person facing a criminal charge pending before a trial
court may be prevented departure from the country, it was unclear whether one may be restrained
to leave the country before he is formally charged in courts, during preliminary investigation
proceedings.

REFERENCES:
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2006/11/24/370885/ayala-land-sells-oakwood-p27-billion

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/business-exit-strategy.asp

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-imelda-idUSMAN27211920070829