AEC 65 ACD3 -

BUSINESS LAWS
AND REGULATIONS
Braga, Charmyl Mae S.
Cañete, Mica A.
Dael, Angela Meriel R,
Noval, Kent Verzell N.
Pacturan, Czarina Jane A.
Salacinas, Jewel S.
Gios-Samar, Inc., V. Department Of
Transportation and Communications
And Civil Aviation Authority Of The
Philippines,
G.R. No. 217158, March 12, 2019.
report
outline
SUMMARY OF FACTS

ISSUES

The ruling of the court

SUMMARY OF
FACTS
 SUMMARY OF FACTS

On December 15, 2014, the

Department of Transportation
and Communication (DOTC) and
its attached agency, the Civil
Aviation Authority of the
Philippines (CAAP), issued its
Invitation to Pre-qualify and bid
on the airport development,
operations and maintenance of
six key regional airports, which
has a total cost of P116.23 Billion.
 SUMMARY OF FACTS
On March 10, 2015, DOTC and CAAP
issued the Instructions to Prospective
Bidders (ITPB), which provided the
general procedure. In the IIBP, the
projects were bundled into two, which
allows prospective bidders to bid for
only Bundle 1 or Bundle 2, or bid for
both Bundles. The bundles are:

Bundle 1: Bacolod-Silay and Iloilo with the amount of

P50.66 Billion

Bundle 2: Davao, Laguindingan, and New Bohol with the

amount of P59.66 Billion
SUMMARY OF FACTS

Gios-Samar, suing as a
taxpayer, filed a petition for
prohibition. Petitioner sought
direct recourse before the
Supreme Court, in its petition
assailed the constitutionality
of the bundling of the Projects
and sought to enjoin the
DOTC and the CAAP from
proceeding with the bidding.
 SUMMARY OF FACTS
Petitioner raises the following arguments:

The bundling of Bundling violates Bundling will The PBAC of Bundling made
the Projects the constitutional "surely perpetrate the DOTC a mockery of
an undue restraint committed public bidding
violated the prohibition on
of trade." Mid- because it
"constitutional monopolies grave abuse of
sized Filipino
prohibitions on under Section 19, discretion raised the
companies which
the anti-dummy Article XII of the amounting to reasonable bar
may have
and the grant of Constitution previously excess of to a level
opportunity to because it would considered jurisdiction higher than
participating will when it what it would
the general allow one
no longer have a bundled the have been, had
public to invest in winning bidder to
realistic projects the projects
public utilities," operate and
opportunity to without legal been bidded
citing Section 11, maintain several authority.
participate in the out separately.
Article XII of the airports, thus bidding because
1987 establishing a

the separate
Constitution. monopoly. projects became
two (2) projects.
 SUMMARY OF FACTS

To counter the arguments,

respondent DOTC asserted that
the petition is premature and
there was no actual bidding
yet.
ISSUES
 ISSUES
Whether bundling of Projects:

Allows the
creation and
Creates operation of a
monopoly combination in
restraint of
trade
the ruling of
the court
ruling of the
court
Petition was dismissed for the
reason that legal issues
raised by petitioner are
intertwined with underlying
questions of fact, the
determination of which
requires reception of
evidence.
 ruling of the
court
No, there was no creation of a monopoly. 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. RA No. 10667 or the Philippine
Competitive Act does not define what constitutes a "monopoly."
Instead, it prohibits one or more entities that have acquired or
achieved a "dominant position" in a "relevant market" from
"abusing" its dominant position. Petitioner has not alleged ultimate
facts to support its claim that bundling will create a monopoly. By
merely stating legal conclusions, the petitioner did not present
any sufficient allegation upon which the Court could grant the
relief for the petitioner.
 ruling of the
court
Supreme Court has said that petitioner utterly failed to sufficiently state a cause of action,
by failing to plead ultimate facts to support its conclusion that bundling, as an arrangement,
is in restraint of trade or results in unfair competition under the provisions of RA No. 10667.
To support the legal conclusion that bundling is an anti -competitive agreement, there must
be evidence that:

The relevant market is that
of airport development,
maintenance, and operation
(under the facts -based
criterion enumerated in
Section 24 of RA No. 10667);
Bundling causes, or Impact is substantial The totality of evidence
will cause, actual or shows that the winning
and outweighs the
potential adverse bidder, more likely than
actual or potential
impact on the not engaged, in anti­-
efficiency gains that competitive agreement
competition in that
results from or conduct
relevant market;
bundling;

thank you