ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY

College of Law
Rockwell Center, Makati City

Atty. Francis Lim First Semester, 2020

COMPETITION LAW SYLLABUS

(2020 Edition)

UNIT ONE
General Background

I. Basic Legal Framework

a. R.A. 10667, otherwise known as “The Philippine Competition Act” (PCA)

b. PCA Implementing Rules & Regulations (“PCA Rules”)

c. Merger Review Guidelines

d. 2017 Rules of Procedure of the Philippine Competition Act

e. Rule on Administrative Search and Inspection Under the Philippine

Competition Act, A.M. No. 19-08-06-SC

II. Basic Concepts

a. Scope of the PCA

i. Section 3, PCA

ii. Rule 1, section 2, Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act

No. 10667 [hereafter, “PCA Rules”]

b. Philippine Competition Commission

i. Composition (sections 5-11, PCA)

ii. Powers and Functions (section 12, PCA)

iii. Office of Competition, DOJ (section 13, PCA)

1
 iv. Immunity from Suit & Indemnity (section 43, PCA)

c. Relevant Market

i. Law

1. Section 24, PCA;

2. PCA Rule 2, section j, PCA IRR; PCA Rule 5

ii. Cases

1. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S.

451 (1992)

2. United States v. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377 (1956)

3. Case 332/81, Nefderlandsche Banden Industrie Michelin v.

Commission [1983] ECR 3461

4. Case T-219/99 British Airways pcs v. Commission [2003] ECR II-

5917

5. Case t-83/91, Tetrapak Rausing v. Commission [1994] ECR II-,

Jones & Sufrin, pp. 331-334.

6. MAO Case No. M-2019-005, In the Matter of the Proposed

Acquisition by GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings
Ltd. of Pfizer Inc.’s Consumer Healthcare Business.

7. Commission Decision No. 03-M-021/2019, In the Matter of the

Proposed Acquisition by Universal Robina Corporation of
Assets of Central Azucarera Don Pedro, Inc. and Roxas
Holdings, Inc.

d. Control (section 25, PCA; PCA Rule 6)

e. Determination of Anti-Competitive Agreement or Conduct (section 26, PCA;

PCA Rule 7)

2
 UNIT TWO
Anti-Competitive Agreements

I. Law

a. PCA, section 14 and 26

b. PCA Rule 3, section 1

c. PCA Rule 7

II. Anti-Competitive Agreements

a. Per se violations

i. Price-fixing

1. Law
a. PCA, section 14[a]

b. PCA Rule 3, section 1(a)(1)

2. Cases

a. Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. vs. American Crystal Co.,

334 U.S.219, 92 L.Ed.1328 (1948)

b. United States vs. Socony-Vacuum, 310 U.S. 150 (1940)

c. Arizona vs. Maricopa County Medical Society, 457 U.S.

332, 73 L.Ed.2d 48 (1982)

ii. Bid rigging

1. Law

a. PCA, section 14[b])

b. PCA Rule 3, section 1(a)(2)

3
 2. Cases

a. United States vs. Fischbach & Moore, Inc., 750 F.2d

1183 3d 1984, cert. denied 105 S.Ct. 1397 (1985)

b. United States vs. Koppers Co., Inc., 652 F.2d 290 (2 nd

Cir. 1981)

b. Non per se violations

i. Production limitation

1. Law
a. PCA Section 14(b)(1)
b. PCA Rule 3, section 1(b)(1)

2. Cases

a. American Column Lumber Co. vs. United States, 257

U.S. 377, 66 L.Ed. 284 (1921)

b. Cases C-468/06 to C-478/06, Sot. Lelos’ Kai Sia EE v.

GlaxoSmithKline AEVE Farmakeftikon Proionton [2008]
1-7139

ii. Market allocation

1. Law

a. Section 14(b)(2)

b. PCA Rule 3, section (b)(2)

2. Case

a. United States vs. Topco Associates, Inc., 405 U.S. 596,

31 L.Ed2d 515 (1972)

4
 iii. Other anti-competitive agreements

1. Law

a. PCA, section 14(c)

b. PCA Rule 3, section 1©

2. Examples

a. Resale price maintenance

i. United States vs. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S.300, 63

L.Ed. 992 (1919)

ii. Leegin Creative Products, Inc. vs. PSKS, Inc., 551

U.S. 877 (2007)

iii. United States vs. Parke Davis & Co., 362 U.S. 29,
4 L.Ed.2d 505 (1960)

b. Group boycotts

i. Klor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359

U.S. 207, 3 L.Ed.2d 741 (1959)

ii. Silver vs.New York Stock Exchange, 373 U.S.

341, 10 L.Ed.2d 389 (1963)

c. Non-price restraints

i. Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433

U.S. 36 (1977)

ii. PCC Case No. E-2019-008, Executive Summary:

Competition Enforcement Office vs. Beneficial
Life Insurance Company, et al. dated 4 February
2020.

III. Single Economic Entity

5
 a. Law

i. PCA, section 14

ii. PCA Rule 3, section 1(d)

b. Cases

i. American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League (2010), 130 S. Ct.

2206.

ii. Case C-73/95 P, Viho Europe BV v Commission of the European

Communities [1996] ECR I-5457.

c. Other Readings

i. Pieter Van Cleynenbreugel, Single entity tests in U.S. antitrust and EU

competition law, June 21, 2011.

UNIT THREE
Abuse of Dominance

I. Policy on monopolies and market dominance (section 15, PCA)

II. Elements of abuse of dominant position

a. Market dominance

i. Law

1. PCA, sections 4(g), 15 and 27

2. PCA, section 2(g)

3. PCA Rule 3, sections 2-3

4. PCA Rule 8

6
 ii. Collective Dominance

1. Cases T-68,77, and 78/89, Societa Italiana Vetro SpA v.

Commission 9 (‘Flat Glass’) ECR II-1403

iii. Further Reading

1. Alison Jones and Brenda Sufrin, TEXT, CASES, AND

MATERIALS: EU COMPETITION LAW, 5th ed., pp 276-281.

b. Kinds of Abuse

i. Predatory pricing

1. Law

a. PCA, section 15(a)

b. PCA Rule 3, section 2(a)(1)

2. Cases

a. Brooke Group Ltd. V. Brown & Williamson Tobacco

Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993)

b. Case C-62/86, AKZO Chemie BV v. Commission [1991]

ECR 1-3359

ii. Barriers to entry and expansion

1. Law

a. PCA, section 15(b)

b. PCA Rule 3, section 2(a)(2)

2. Reading
a. Alison Jones and Brenda Sufrin, TEXT, CASES, AND
MATERIALS: EU COMPETITION LAW, 5th ed., pp
85-94.

7
 iii. Tying/bundling arrangements

1. Law

a. PCA, section 15© and (f)

b. PCA Rule 3, section 2(a)(3) and (6)

2. Cases

a. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.,

504 U.S. 451 (1992)

b. United States vs. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 34

(D. Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 952 (2001)

c. Case T-201/04, Microsoft v. Commission [2007] ECR-

3601

d. Eurofix-Banco/Hilot OJ L65/19 NEW

e. Case C-333/94 P, Tetra Pak International SA v.

Commission [1996] ECR I-5951 NEW

10/2/20
iv. Discriminatory pricing

1. Law

a. PCA, section 15(d)

b. PCA Rule 3, section 2(a)(4)

2. Cases

a. Trade Commission v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U.S. 37 (1948)

b. Boise Cascade Corp. v. FTC, 837 F.2d 1127 (D.C. Cir.

1988)

8
 c. Volvo Trucks Northe America, Inc. vs. Reeder-Simao
GMC, 546 U.S. 164 [2006]). NEW

v. Trade Restrictions

1. Law

a. PCA, section 15(e)

b. PCA Rule 3, section 2(a)(5)

vi. Abusive/exploitative pricing

1. Law

a. PCA, section 15(h)

b. PCA Rule 3, section 2(a)(8)

2. Case

a. Case 27/76 United Brands v. Commission [1978] ECR

207

vii. Other Examples

a. Commission Decision No. 01-E-001/2019, Competition

Enforcement Office of the Philippine Competition
Commission v. Urban Deca Homes Manila
Condominium Corporation and 8990 Holdings, Inc.

10/09/20

UNIT FOUR
Anti-Competitive Mergers and Acquisitions

I. Concept of Mergers and Acquisitions (M&As)

a. Law
i. Acquisition (section 4(a), PCA; PCA Rule 2, section a

9
 ii. PCA Rule 6

b. Merger (section 4(j), PCA; PCA Rule 2, section k)

c. Joint Venture (PCA Rule 2, section i; PCA Guidelines on Notification of Joint

Ventures)

II. February 16, 2016 – Memorandum Circulars 16-

001 and 16-002 was signed
III. ●March 8, 2016 – Memorandum Circulars 16-
001 and 16-002 went into effect
IV. February 16, 2016 – Memorandum Circulars 16-
001 and 16-002 was signed
V. ●March 8, 2016 – Memorandum Circulars 16-
001 and 16-002 went into effect

VI. Prohibited and exempt M&As

a. Law

i. PCA, sections 16-23

ii. PCA Rule 4

iii. PCA Rules on Merger Procedure

iv. Merger Review Guidelines

b. Cases

i. Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 8 L.Ed.2d 510 (1962)

ii. Ford Motor Company v. United States, 405 U.S. 562, 32 L.Ed.2d 492
(1972)

iii. United States v. Greater Buffalo Press, Inc., 402 U.S. 549, 29 L.Ed.2d
170 (1979)

10
 iv. AEI/Reyrolle Parsons re Vacuum Interrupters [1977] OJL48/32

v. Commission Decision No. 03-M-021/2019, In the Matter of the

Proposed Acquisition by Universal Robina Corporation of Assets of
Central Azucarera Don Pedro, Inc. and Roxas Holdings, Inc.

vi. MAO Case No. M-2018-034, In the Matter of the Proposed Acquisition
by International Container Terminal Services, Inc. of Shares in the
Manila North Harbour Port, Inc.

vii. Issued by the Mergers and Acquisitions Office on the PROPOSED

ACQUISITION BY FIRST STRONGHOLD CEMENT INDUSTRIES, INC. OF
SHARES IN HOLCIM PHILIPPINES, INC.

VII. Compulsory notification

a. Law

i. PCA, sections 16-23

b. Rules

i. PCA Rules 4 and 5

ii. Memorandum Circular No. 16-001

iii. Memorandum Circular No. 16-002

iv. PCC Rules on Merger Procedure

v. Merger Review Guidelines

vi. PCC M.C. No. 17-001 “Determination of Fines for Failure to Comply
with Merger Notification Requirements and Waiting Periods”

vii. Internal Restructuring (Clarificatory Note No. 16-002)

viii. Consolidation of Ownership (Clarificatory Note No. 18-001)

11
 ix. Land Acquisition (subject to certain conditions) (Clarificatory Note No.
19-001)

x. Process for Exemption of PPP Projects (PCC M.C. No. 19-001)

c. Thresholds

i. Size of Party & Transaction Value Tests

1. 2020 Thresholds (PCC Commission Resolution No. 02-2020)

2. PCC Guide to Computing Merger Notification Thresholds

ii. Case

1. PCC Case No. M-2017-001, In the Matter of Corporation and KGL

Investment Cooperatief U.A.’s Alleged Violation of the Compulsory
Notification Requirements Under Section 17 of the Philippine
Competition Act

d. Timelines (Rule 4, section 5, PCA Rules)

e. Procedure (Rule 4, sections 4 & 5, PCA IRR; PCA Rules on Merger Procedure)

f. Exemptions from prohibited mergers/acquisition (Rule 4, section 10, PCA

IRR)

VIII. Creeping M&As (Rule 4, section 3(e), PCA IRR)

IX. Expedited Merger Review (Expedited Merger Review Rules)

X. Effects of notification and non-notifications (Rule 4, section 6, PCA IRR; section 17,
PCA)

a. Commission Decision No. 38-M-031/2018, In the Matter of Macsteel Global

SARL B.V. and MSSA Investment B.V.’s Alleged Violation of the Compulsory
Notification Requirements under Section 2.1 of the PCC Rules on Merger
Procedure.

b. PCC Case No. M-2019-001, MAO v. Bases Conversion and Development

Authority and SM Prime Holdings, Inc.

12
 c. PCC Case No. M-2020-001, MAO v. City Savings Bank, Inc. and Bangko
Kabayan, Inc.

UNIT FIVE
LIABILITIES

I. 2017 Rules of Procedure of the Philippine Competition Act

II. Administrative Fines (section 29, PCA)

a. Anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominance and anti-competitive

mergers and acquisitions

b. Fines for other violations of PCA

c. Concept of treble fines

d. Escalation clause for administrative fines

III. Civil liabilities (section 45, PCA)

a. Private suits

IV. Criminal penalties (section 30, PCA)

a. Responsible parties

b. Particeps criminis

UNIT SIX
Enforcement Mechanism

I. Preliminary inquiry (sections 31-34, PCA)

13
 II. Nolo contendere (section 36, PCA)

III. Non-adversarial administrative remedies (section 37, PCA)

a. Request for binding ruling

b. Consent judgment

c. Show cause order

d. Monitoring compliance

IV. Doctrine of prior resort

UNIT SEVEN
Judicial Relief

I. Appeal from the PCC (section 39, PCA)

a. TRO/preliminary injunction ban (section 47, PCA)

II. Curative period (section 53, PCA)

- Lapsed on 8 August 2017

III. Jurisdiction over civil cases (section 44, PCA)

IV. Jurisdiction over criminal cases (section 44, PCA)

V. Statute of limitations (section 46, PCA)

UNIT VIII
Miscellaneous

I. Dawn Raids

a. Section 12(g), PCA

14
 b. Rule on Administrative Search and Inspection Under the Philippine
Competition Act, A.M. No. 19-08-06-SC

II. Forbearance

a. Section 28, PCA

b. PCA Rule 9

III. Leniency program

a. Section 35, PCA

b. Rules of the Leniency Program of the PCC.

IV. Trade associations

a. Law

i. Section 48, PCA

ii. PCA Rules

b. Cases

i. Silver vs.New York Stock Exchange, 373 U.S. 341, 10 L.Ed.2d 389 (1963)

ii. CEO-201703-FAI003, Closure of Investigation: Alleged Violation by Entities

of the Philippine Competition Act in the Provision of Ophthalmological
Services

15