Title
J.G. Summit Holdings Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 124293
Decision Date
Jan 31, 2005
A joint venture's right to top clause violated constitutional foreign ownership limits in PHILSECO's sale, invalidating KAWASAKI's bid despite J.G. Summit's protest.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 124293)

Petitioner and Respondents

Petitioner: J.G. Summit Holdings, Inc.
Respondents: Court of Appeals; COP, its Chairman and Members; APT; Philyards Holdings, Inc.

Key Dates

– January 27, 1977: NIDC-Kawasaki JVA executed.
– November 25, 1986: NIDC’s interest in PHILSECO transferred to PNB, then to the National Government.
– December 8, 1986 & February 27, 1987: COP created; APT trust agreement signed.
– December 2, 1993: Public bidding held; JG Summit declared highest bidder.
– February 2–7, 1994: PHI exercised “right to top” by 5% and paid purchase price.
– May 11, 1994: JG Summit’s mandamus petition filed with Supreme Court, referred to CA.
– July 18, 1995: CA denied mandamus for lack of proper remedy.
– November 20, 2000: SC ruled in favor of JG Summit, voided PHI’s purchase.
– September 24, 2003: SC reversed its 2000 decision in favor of respondents.
– October 2003–February 2004: JG Summit filed motions for reconsideration and to elevate to en banc.

Applicable Law

– 1987 Philippine Constitution (foreign equity limitations, public domain).
– Civil Code provisions on contracts, estoppel, real rights.
– Jurisprudence on public bidding discretion, right of first refusal, enforceability of contractual stipulations.

Joint Venture and Right of First Refusal

Under the 1977 JVA, NIDC and Kawasaki each held rights in PHILSECO capitalized at ₱330 million (60%–40%). Clause 1.4 granted mutual rights of first refusal on any transfer, except to government-owned entities or Kawasaki affiliates.

Privatization and Bidding Process

Following quasi-reorganization in 1989 (Government equity rose to 97.41%), COP and APT decided to privatize PHILSECO. ASBR for the 1993 bidding: public sale of 896,869,942 shares; indicative price ₱1.3 billion; highest bid subject to COP/APT approval; Kawasaki/PHI entitled to “option to top” highest bid by 5%, with defined deposit and payment terms.

Exercise of the Right to Top

JG Summit bid ₱2.03 billion and acknowledged Kawasaki/PHI’s topping right. After COP approval on December 3, 1993, PHI exercised its top-up option within 30 days, deposited required amounts, and executed a Stock Purchase Agreement on February 24, 1994.

Lower Courts’ Rulings

CA (July 18, 1995) denied JG Summit’s mandamus for impropriety, held right of first refusal and topping option prima facie legal, and applied estoppel based on JG Summit’s participation with full knowledge. CA’s denial of reconsideration on March 15, 1996 prompted JG Summit’s certiorari to SC.

Supreme Court’s 2000 Decision

SC (Nov. 20, 2000) ruled PHILSECO a public utility requiring 60% Filipino ownership; invalidated Kawasaki’s topping right under ASBR (allowed foreign equity >40%); held provisions unconstitutional; voided PHI’s title; ordered APT to convey shares to JG Summit upon payment.

2003 Resolution and Subsequent Motions

SC Special First Division (Sept. 24, 2003) reversed the 2000 decision, holding: (1) PHILSECO is not a public utility; (2) JVA imposes no 40% cap on Kawasaki’s equity; (3) the right to top did not violate competitive bidding. JG Summit then moved for reconsideration and elevation to en banc.

Motion to Elevate to Court en banc

JG Summit urged en banc review on grounds of confusion between bidding propriety and shipping-industry policy, existence of novel questions, and alleged executive interference (Finance Secretary’s memo to Chief Justice). PHILYARDS and COP/APT opposed, citing settled jurisprudence, estoppel by prior opposition, and en banc non-appellable status of divisional resolutions.

Court’s Analysis on Elevation

SC held no confusion: the 2003 Resolution directly addressed bidding issues. No novel legal questions arose; rights of first refusal and competitive-bidding principles are well-established. The finance-secretary memo was merely noted without impact. Divisional resolutions are Supreme Court decisions; en banc escalation is not available. Motion denied.

Motion for Reconsideration

JG Summit challenged: (1) reliance on policy rather than strict

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.