Legislation and jurisdiction

Relevant legislation and regulators

What is the relevant legislation and who enforces it?

The Philippine Competition Act of 2015 (PCA), which was enacted in July 2015, is the primary law that promotes fair market competition. It provides the guidelines on mergers and acquisitions that are competition-related activities. Its Implementing Rules and Regulations (PCA IRR) were released in June 2016.

The PCA prohibits anticompetitive agreements and abuses of dominant position. More importantly, it requires parties to a merger or acquisition, including a joint venture, that meet the size of party and value of transaction thresholds to notify the Philippine Competition Commission (PCC) prior to the execution of any definitive agreement and to obtain the approval of the PCC prior to the consummation of the transaction.

The Mergers and Acquisitions Office (MAO) of the PCC is responsible for the review and investigation of mergers and acquisitions that could substantially prevent, restrict and lessen competition in the relevant market or in the market for goods or services. The PCC is granted the power to review M&As to maintain market competition and to prevent anticompetitive behavior.

Scope of legislation

What kinds of mergers are caught?

The PCA defines a merger as the joining of two or more entities into an existing entity or to form a new entity. Moreover, an acquisition is defined as the purchase of securities or assets through contract or other means, for the purpose of obtaining control by:

  • one entity of the whole or part of another;
  • two or more entities over another; or
  • one or more entities over one or more entities.

The PCC possesses the power to review mergers and acquisitions having a direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable effect on trade, industry or commerce in the Philippines. The PCA expressly prohibits merger or acquisition agreements that substantially prevent, restrict or lessen competition in the relevant market or in the market for goods or services. Nonetheless, an exemption from this prohibition may be granted by the Commission:

  • when the parties establish that the concentration has brought about or is likely to bring about gains in efficiencies that are greater than the effects of any limitation on competition that result or likely result from the merger or acquisition agreement; or
  • when a party to the merger or acquisition agreement is faced with actual or imminent financial failure, and the agreement represents the least anticompetitive arrangement among the known alternative uses for the failing entity’s assets.

What types of joint ventures are caught?

The PCA IRR includes joint ventures in the definition of the term ‘merger’. Thus, the relevant provisions of the PCA that pertain to mergers also find application to joint ventures.

There are two main types of joint ventures in the Philippines: (i) a contractual or unincorporated joint venture where the partnership between the joint venture partners is governed by contract and no legal entity is created; and (ii) an incorporated joint venture where a legal entity that is separate and distinct from the joint venture partners is created and registered with the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Is there a definition of ‘control’ and are minority and other interests less than control caught?

The PCA defines ‘control’ as the ability to substantially influence or direct the actions or decisions of an entity, whether by contract, agency or otherwise. Generally, control is presumed to exist when the parent company owns, directly or indirectly, through subsidiaries, more than one-half of the voting power of an entity.

Control also exists even if an entity merely holds minority interest over another entity when:

  • there is power over more than one half of the voting rights by virtue of an agreement with investors;
  • there is power to direct or govern the financial and operating policies of the entity;
  • there is power to appoint or remove the majority of the directors;
  • there is power to cast majority votes at board meetings;
  • there exist ownership rights over or right to use all or a significant part of the assets of the entity; or
  • there exist rights or contracts that confer decisive influence on the decisions of the entity.
Thresholds, triggers and approvals

What are the jurisdictional thresholds for notification and are there circumstances in which transactions falling below these thresholds may be investigated?

The thresholds for compulsory notification are based on revenue or asset value of the ultimate parent entity and the value of the transaction. The PCA IRR, as amended by PCC Advisory 2019-001, effective 1 March 2019, provides that parties to a merger or acquisition are required to provide notification to the PCC when the following tests are satisfied.

Size of the party test

The aggregate annual gross revenues in, into or from the Philippines, or value of the assets in the Philippines of the ultimate parent entity of at least one of the acquiring or acquired entities, including that of all entities that the ultimate parent entity controls, directly or indirectly, exceeds 5.6 billion Philippine pesos.

Value of the transaction test

The value of the transaction exceeds 2.2 billion Philippine pesos, as determined by the following factors:

  • With respect to a proposed merger or acquisition of assets inside and/or outside the Philippines, if:
    • the aggregate value of the assets in the Philippines (or of the acquiring entity in the Philippines) exceeds 2.2 billion Philippine pesos; and
    • the aggregate gross revenues generated in or into the Philippines by the assets located within or outside the Philippines collectively exceed 2.2 billion Philippine pesos.
  • With respect to a proposed acquisition of voting shares of a corporation, or of an interest in a non-corporate entity (the ‘target’):
    • if the aggregate value of the assets in the Philippines owned by the target including the entities it controls, other than assets that are shares of any of those corporations, exceed 2.2 billion Philippine pesos; or
    • the gross revenues from sales in, into, or from the Philippines of the corporation or non-corporate entity including entities it controls, other than assets that are shares of any of those corporations, exceed 2.2 billion Philippine pesos; and
    • if as a result of the proposed acquisition of the voting shares or interest, the acquiring entity would own at least 35 per cent voting shares or interest except when the acquiring entities already own 35 per cent, in which case the proposed acquisition must result in the acquisition of 50 per cent of the voting shares or interest in the target.
  • With respect to a formation of a joint venture, the prospective joint venturers must notify if either:
    • the aggregate value of the assets that will be combined in the Philippines or contributed into the proposed joint venture exceeds 2.2 billion Philippine pesos; or
    • the gross revenues generated in the Philippines by assets to be combined in the Philippines or contributed into the proposed joint venture exceed 2.2 billion Philippine pesos. In determining the assets of the joint venture, all potential and consummated contributions by the prospective joint venturers and any or all kind of credit or obligations by the prospective joint venturers shall be included.

The adjusted thresholds for notification shall not apply to:

  • mergers or acquisitions pending review by the Commission;
  • notifiable transactions consummated before 1 March 2019; and
  • transactions already subject of a decision by the Commission.

In this regard, section 3(f) of the PCA IRR provides that for purposes of calculating notification thresholds:

  • the aggregate value of assets in the Philippines shall be as stated in the last regularly prepared balance sheet or the most recent audited financial statements in which those assets are accounted for; and
  • the gross revenues from sales of an entity shall be the amount stated on the last regularly prepared annual statement of income and expense of that entity.

Transactions falling below the foregoing thresholds that constitute an anticompetitive agreement or an abuse of market dominance may be investigated by the PCC in a motu proprio investigation. An anticompetitive agreement may be an agreement that is prohibited per se (eg, price fixing, bid rigging) or an agreement with the object or effect of substantially preventing, restricting or lessening competition (eg, limiting supply, sharing markets). An ‘abuse of market dominance’, on the other hand, is the act of engaging in conduct that would substantially prevent, restrict or lessen competition, such as predatory pricing, price discrimination and refusal to deal.

Is the filing mandatory or voluntary? If mandatory, do any exceptions exist?

Filing is mandatory once a transaction breaches the size of the party and value of the transaction tests. The PCA and its implementing rules do not contain exceptions to the compulsory notification requirement. If parties to M&A transactions requiring compulsory notification fail to notify the PCC, the said transactions shall be considered void and the parties shall be sanctioned with an administrative fine.

The PCC has imposed a multi-million peso fine on a Philippine conglomerate that did not comply with the compulsory notification requirement (see In Re: Udenna Corporation, PCC Case No. M-2017-001).

Do foreign-to-foreign mergers have to be notified and is there a local effects or nexus test?

Yes. The PCA also contemplates foreign-to-foreign mergers with assets in the Philippines or gross revenues generated in or into the Philippines by assets acquired outside the Philippines that exceed the threshold amount.

The test applied by the PCC is the substantially prevents, restricts or lessens competition (SLC test). The PCC will look at the effects on competition over time in the relevant market or markets affected by the merger. A merger gives rise to an SLC when it has a significant effect on competition, and consequently, on the competitive pressure on firms to reduce prices, improve quality, become more efficient or innovative. A merger that gives rise to an SLC is likely to result in an adverse effect on consumers.

In the PCC Decision No. 022-M-039/2018 in the case entitled ‘In the Matter of the Proposed Acquisition by Chelsea Logistics Holdings Corporation of Shares in KGLI-NM Holdings, Inc Chelsea Logistics Holdings Corporation, KGLI-NM Holdings, Inc’ with docket No. PCC Case No. M-2018-002, the Commission held that the transaction will result in substantial lessening of competition in the following geographic markets for passenger shipping because:

  • the transaction eliminates a competitor that was previously a source of competitive constraint;
  • there is a strong likelihood of price increases of a magnitude that adversely affects customers; and
  • barriers to entry are high.

Are there also rules on foreign investment, special sectors or other relevant approvals?

While there are no general limitations to foreign investment in Philippine companies, the Philippine Constitution, the Foreign Investments Act of 1991 (FIA), and numerous special laws contain certain nationality restrictions on the ownership of private lands, operation of public utilities, the conduct of retail trade business and other investment areas and activities. Nonetheless, recent Philippine legislation reflects a gradual relaxation of these nationality restrictions.

The Republic Act No. 10574, which took effect in 2013, enabled foreigners to own 60 per cent of rural banks, which were previously required to be 100 per cent Filipino-owned. Furthermore, Republic Act No. 10881, which lapsed into law in July 2016, removed foreign equity restrictions for adjustment companies, lending companies, financing companies and investment houses. This new law allows 100 per cent foreign ownership over these types of companies.

The following investment areas and activities can now be 100 per cent owned by foreigners by virtue of Executive Order No. 65 (Eleventh Regular Foreign Investment Negative List) which was signed into law on 29 October 2018:

  • internet businesses;
  • adjustment companies, lending companies, financing companies, and investment houses; and
  • wellness centers

Mergers and acquisitions involving regulated industries usually require the endorsement or approval of certain government agencies. Mergers or consolidations of banks, for example, require the prior approval of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) and are subject to the guidelines and procedures contained in the BSP’s Manual of Regulations for Banks.

Notification and clearance timetable

Filing formalities

What are the deadlines for filing? Are there sanctions for not filing and are they applied in practice?

Parties to a merger or acquisition that satisfy the thresholds for compulsory notification are required to notify the PCC before the execution of the definitive agreements relating to the transaction or the consummation of the transaction. The failure to comply with this notification requirement shall render the agreement void and shall subject the parties to an administrative fine of 1 to 5 per cent of the value of the transaction. This was applied in In Re: Udenna Corporation, PCC Case No. M-2017-001.

Which parties are responsible for filing and are filing fees required?

Rule 4, section 4 of the PCA IRR provides that parties to a proposed merger or acquisition may request a pre-notification consultation with the PCC. To request a pre-notification consultation, the parties must provide the following information in writing:

  • the names and business contact information of the entities concerned;
  • the type of transaction; and
  • the markets covered or lines of businesses by the proposed merger or acquisition.

During such pre-notification consultations, the parties may seek non-binding advice on the specific information that is required to be in the notification.

Under Rule 4, section 2 of the PCA IRR, if notice to the PCC is required for a merger or acquisition, then all acquiring and acquired pre-acquisition ultimate parent entities or any entity authorised by the ultimate parent entity to file notification on its behalf must each submit a Notification Form (the Form) and comply with the procedure set forth in the PCA IRR. The parties shall not consummate the transaction before the expiry of the relevant periods provided in the PCA IRR.

The Revised Rules on Payment of Fees for Notification and Review of Mergers and Acquisitions (PCC Memorandum Circular No. 17-002 issued on 15 June 2017) provides for a two-phased payment scheme: first, 250,000 Philippine pesos upon submission of the notification form, and second, 1 per cent of 1 per cent of the value of the transaction but not less than 1 million Philippine pesos or more than 5 million Philippine pesos, once the application proceeds to a Phase II review.

What are the waiting periods and does implementation of the transaction have to be suspended prior to clearance?

Under Rule 4, section 5 of the PCA IRR, the waiting period begins after all notifying entities have filed their respective Forms, together with the corresponding certifications and affidavits, and have been notified by the PCC that the Forms are complete. The transaction must be suspended prior to the PCC’s clearance of the transaction at the risk of the transaction being voided by the PCC and the imposition of administrative sanctions (see In Re: Udenna Corporation, PCC Case No. M-2017-001).

Upon submission of the Form, the PCC shall determine within 15 days whether the Form and other relevant requirements have been completed in accordance with applicable rules or guidelines, and shall inform the parties of other information or documents it may have failed to supply, or issue a notice to the parties that the notification is sufficient for purposes of commencing Phase I review of the merger or acquisition.

The said waiting period shall commence only upon the PCC’s determination that the notification has been completed in accordance with applicable rules and guidelines.

Within 30 days from commencing Phase I review, the PCC shall, if necessary, inform the parties of the need for a more comprehensive and detailed analysis of the merger or acquisition under a Phase II review, and request other information or documents that are relevant to its review.

The issuance of the aforesaid request by the PCC has the effect of extending the period within which the agreement may not be consummated for an additional 60 days. The additional 60 day period shall begin on the day after the request for information is received by the parties. However, in no case shall the total period for review by the PCC of the subject agreement exceed 90 days from the time the initial notification by the parties is deemed complete as provided under paragraph (f) of section 5 or Rule 4 of the PCA IRR. Furthermore, should the parties fail to provide the requested information within 15 days from receipt of the said request, the notification shall be deemed expired and the parties must refile their notification. Alternatively, should the parties wish to submit the requested information beyond the 15-day period, the parties may request for an extension of time within which to comply with the request for additional information, in which case, the period for review shall be correspondingly extended.

The PCC, in its discretion, may terminate a waiting period prior to its expiry.

When the above periods have expired and no decision has been promulgated for whatever reason, the merger or acquisition shall be deemed approved and the parties may proceed to implement or consummate it.

Pre-clearance closing

What are the possible sanctions involved in closing or integrating the activities of the merging businesses before clearance and are they applied in practice?

If the thresholds for compulsory notification are satisfied and the parties implement closing before clearance from the PCC is obtained, the transaction shall be considered void, and the parties shall be subject to an administrative fine of 1 to 5 per cent of the transaction value.

In the case of In Re: Udenna Corporation, PCC Case No. M-2017-001, the PCC voided a Philippine conglomerate’s acquisition of shares in a foreign corporation that has Philippine subsidiaries when holding substantial assets for non-compliance with the compulsory notification requirement under the PCA. The PCC also imposed a fine of around 20 million Philippine pesos. The PCC held for the purposes of the value of the transaction test that the target corporation’s shares in ‘entities it controls are excluded’ but the ‘assets of the controlled corporations are still included in the valuation’.

Are sanctions applied in cases involving closing before clearance in foreign-to-foreign mergers?

The same sanctions stated in the previous question are applicable to foreign-to-foreign mergers that are covered by the PCA.

What solutions might be acceptable to permit closing before clearance in a foreign-to-foreign merger?

The PCA and its implementing rules do not contain provisions permitting closing before clearance in a foreign-to-foreign merger.

Public takeovers

Are there any special merger control rules applicable to public takeover bids?

The acquisition of at least 35 per cent of the voting shares in a listed company triggers the requirement of a mandatory tender offer. In such a case, the waiting and notification period also applies as the acquirer or offeror is required to file and deliver SEC Form 19-1 to the SEC, the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) and the target company, to comply with disclosure requirements to security holders and to publish the terms and conditions of the tender offer in two national newspapers of general circulation. A tender offer shall, unless withdrawn, remain open until the expiry of at least 20 business days from its commencement, provided that an offer should, as much as possible, be completed within 60 business days of the date the intention to make such an offer is publicly announced.

Documentation

What is the level of detail required in the preparation of a filing, and are there sanctions for supplying wrong or missing information?

Rule 4, section 5 of the PCA IRR prescribes a Notification Form (the Form), which must be signed by a general partner of a partnership, an officer of director of a corporation, or in the case of a natural person, the natural person or his or her legal representative, and certified that the contents of the Form are true and accurate of their own personal knowledge, or based on authentic records. The Form is very detailed as it requires thorough disclosure of the nature of the transaction, operations of the parties in the Philippines, and horizontal and vertical relationships.

In addition to the Form, the parties may also notify on the basis of a binding preliminary agreement in any form. Each of the acquired and acquiring entities must submit an affidavit with their Forms, attesting to the fact that a binding preliminary agreement has been executed and that each party has an intention of completing the proposed transaction in good faith.

An entity found to have reported false, misleading or malicious information, data, or document may be penalised by a fine not less than the penalty imposed in the section reported to have been violated by the entity complained of.

Investigation phases and timetable

What are the typical steps and different phases of the investigation?

There are two phases in the investigation: Phase I review and Phase II review.

Upon submission of the Form, the PCC shall determine within 15 days whether the requirements are complete in accordance with the rules, and shall inform the parties of other documents needed, or issue a notice to the parties that the notification is sufficient for commencing Phase I. The 30-day period shall commence only upon the PCC’s determination that the notification has been completed.

If the PCC decides within the 30-day period the need for a more comprehensive and detailed analysis, they may request additional documents, which triggers the Phase II review. The issuance of this request has the effect of extending the period within which the transaction may not be consummated for an additional 60 days. The additional 60-day period shall commence on the day after the request for information has been received by the parties.

However, the total period for review by the PCC of the subject agreement must not exceed 90 days from the time the initial notification by the parties is deemed complete. If the parties fail to provide the requested information within 15 days, the notification shall be deemed expired and the parties must refile their notification. However, the parties may request for an extension of time to comply.

What is the statutory timetable for clearance? Can it be speeded up?

In case there is no decision from the PCC after the above-mentioned periods, the transaction shall be considered approved and the parties may proceed to consummate the transaction. Hence, if there is no decision from the PCC within the 30-day period from commencing Phase I review, then the transaction shall be deemed approved.

Substantive assessment

Substantive test

What is the substantive test for clearance?

Section 14(b) of the PCA adopts the SLC Test. Under the PCC Merger Review Guidelines, a merger is cleared if it does not have a significant effect on competition, and consequently, on the competitive pressure on firms to reduce prices, improve quality, become more efficient or innovative. The policy of the law is to foster competition which, in turn, leads to greater efficiencies and promotion of consumer welfare.

Is there a special substantive test for joint ventures?

None at present, although the PCC is not precluded by law to adopt a special substantive test for joint ventures.

(See In re: Joint Venture between Robinsons Land Corporation and Ideal Land Limited, Commission Decision No. 014-M-015/2018).

Theories of harm

What are the ‘theories of harm’ that the authorities will investigate?

Under the PCA, the PCC is not restricted to a specific theory of harm in applying the SLC Test. Consistent with Philippine legal principles, the PCC is authorised to utilise all reasonable means in fulfilling its regulatory and enforcement mandate, provided it does not gravely abuse its discretion.

Non-competition issues

To what extent are non-competition issues relevant in the review process?

Public interest issues are very much relevant and material in the review process. The public policies behind competition law include the prevention of monopolies, improvement of industrial efficiencies and promotion of consumer welfare. These are all overriding considerations that will have a great impact in the decision-making process.

Most recently, the PCC assumed jurisdiction to review the sale of business by a potential third telecommunications player to two of the largest and only telecommunications companies in the Philippines, despite an official issuance that certain mergers submitted within a certain deadline were ‘deemed approved’. The PCC’s decision to assert its jurisdiction is spurred by public clamour bewailing the low quality of service currently provided by existing telecommunications companies that enjoy a virtual duopoly in the Philippines. The issue is currently pending litigation before the Philippine Supreme Court.

Economic efficiencies

To what extent does the authority take into account economic efficiencies in the review process?

Economic efficiencies are an important consideration as evidence of significant efficiency gains is used as the basis to secure an exemption from the PCC from the SLC Test (sections 21 and 22, PCA).

Remedies and ancillary restraints

Regulatory powers

What powers do the authorities have to prohibit or otherwise interfere with a transaction?

The PCA has plenary powers to interfere with transactions falling within their jurisdiction, in particular:

  • all mergers that involve a transaction value greater than the merger notification thresholds must be submitted to the PCC for its prior clearance, otherwise it shall be void (section 17, PCA);
  • if determined to be anticompetitive, the PCC may prohibit its implementation unless modified by the parties to the PCC’s satisfaction (section 18, PCA);
  • issue show cause or cease and desist orders (section 12(f), PCA); and
  • non-compliance with the notification and review requirements for mergers may result in the imposition of severe administrative penalties such as:
    • a fine of up to 250 million Philippine pesos; and
    • divestiture, disgorgement of excess profits, corporate reorganisation and other structural remedies (section 12(h), PCA).

In the case of In the Matter of the Proposed Acquisition by Universal Robina Corporation (URC) of Assets of Central Azucarera Don Pedro Inc (CADPI) and Roxas Holdings Inc (RHI), the Commission in its Commission Decision No. 03-M-021/2019 decided to reject Universal Robina Corporation’s voluntary commitments in the acquisition of Central Azucarera Don Pedro because these did not sufficiently address the anticompetitive effects arising from the transaction.

Remedies and conditions

Is it possible to remedy competition issues, for example by giving divestment undertakings or behavioural remedies?

Yes, this is provided under section 37 of the PCA, which contains non-adversarial remedies to encourage voluntary compliance, which are as follows: (i) binding ruling; (ii) show cause order; (iii) consent order; and (iv) monitoring of compliance.

One of the non-adversarial remedies is the rendition of a binding ruling by the PCC. Where no prior complaint or investigation has been initiated, any entity that is in doubt as to whether it is compliant with the PCA, may request the PCC to render a binding ruling. In the event of an adverse binding ruling, the entity shall be given reasonable time, which shall be no more than 90 days, to abide by the ruling without being subject to administrative, civil or criminal action.

What are the basic conditions and timing issues applicable to a divestment or other remedy?

Under section 12(h) of the PCA, a divestment or other structural remedy may be resorted to under any of the following conditions:

  • there is no equally effective behavioural remedy; or
  • where any equally effective behavioural remedy would be more burdensome for the enterprise concerned than the structural remedy.

What is the track record of the authority in requiring remedies in foreign-to-foreign mergers?

The PCC issued an interim order in relation to its motu proprio review of the acquisition by Grab Holdings, Inc (Grab) of the assets of Uber BV and Uber Systems Inc (Uber). The PCC’s interim order required, among others, Uber to ‘maintain independence of its business operations’ from Grab pending the PCC’s motu proprio review. The PCC also directed the parties to refrain from any conduct allowing transfer of information or technology from one service platform to another, imposing any exclusivity clauses, lock-in periods or termination fees in relation to Uber drivers seeking to transfer to Grab’s platform and refrain from any act ‘that will prejudice the PCC’s power to review the transaction and impose remedies’.

As of this date, the PCC’s motu proprio review of the transaction remains pending.

Ancillary restrictions

In what circumstances will the clearance decision cover related arrangements (ancillary restrictions)?

The PCC currently does not have any rules governing the effect of a clearance decision (or the lack thereof) to related arrangements. It is submitted that the PCC has discretion to extend the effect of a clearance decision to related arrangements as required by the circumstances.

Involvement of other parties or authorities

Third-party involvement and rights

Are customers and competitors involved in the review process and what rights do complainants have?

No, under existing rules, customers and competitors are not involved in the review process, which is done entirely ex parte.

Publicity and confidentiality

What publicity is given to the process and how do you protect commercial information, including business secrets, from disclosure?

The entire review process, including all information submitted to the PCC, is treated as confidential (section 34, PCA).

Cross-border regulatory cooperation

Do the authorities cooperate with antitrust authorities in other jurisdictions?

Considering that the PCC is a young competition authority, there is no official policy yet on this matter. However, future cooperation by the PCC with foreign antitrust authorities is highly likely.

Judicial review

Available avenues

What are the opportunities for appeal or judicial review?

Section 39 of the PCA provides for a direct appeal to the Court of Appeals from any decision of the PCC. However, parties have procedural recourses (by way of a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals) from any order or directive rendered by the PCC during the course of the review process.

Time frame

What is the usual time frame for appeal or judicial review?

Considering the usual time frame involved in commercial cases in the Philippines, the usual time frame for appeal or judicial review may range from three to five years. Procedural recourses from interlocutory orders or findings of the PCC or the Court of Appeals account for the prolonging of the time frame.

Enforcement practice and future developments

Enforcement record

What is the recent enforcement record and what are the current enforcement concerns of the authorities?

Based on its 2018 PCC Annual Report: Disrupting Unfair Market Competition:

  • There were 95 pre-notification consultations conducted.
  • There were 40 notifications received by the PCC.
  • 490.84 billion Philippine pesos combined worth of transactions received.
  • There were 33 cases of mergers and acquisitions approved.
  • 47.74 million Philippine pesos in fines were collected from non-notification and other violations.
  • There were five preliminary inquiries commenced and five full administrative investigations commenced.

Here is the list of transactions reviewed by the PCC in 2018:

  • M-2017-050 Phoenix Petroleum Philippines, Inc/Philippine Family Mart CVS, Inc.
  • M-2017-051 Landbank of the Philippines/Postal Savings Bank, Inc.
  • M-2018-001 Pact Group Industries (Asia) Pty Ltd/Closure Systems International (Philippines), Inc.
  • M-2018-004 Markham Resources Corp/Alternergy Mini Hydro Holdings Corp.
  • M-2018-002 Ayala Land, Inc/Royal Asia Land, Inc.
  • M-2018-005 Ningbo Joyson Electronics Corp/Takata Corporation.
  • M-2018-003 SMC Global Power Holdings Corp/Masin AES Pte Ltd/AES Transpower Pte Ltd/AES Philippines, Inc.
  • M-2018-006 Fullerton Healthcare Corp Ltd/Asalus Corp/Avega Managed Care, Inc/Aventus Medical Care, Inc.
  • M-2018-007 Ayala Land, Inc/Central Azucarera de Tarlac.
  • M-2018-009 Bases Conversion Development Authority/MTD Capital Berhad.
  • M-2018-008 Robinsons Land Corporation/Shang Properties, Inc.
  • M-2018-011 Alterpower Specialist, Inc/Enfinity Philippines Renewable Resources Fourth, Inc.
  • M-2018-015 Robinsons Land Corporation/Ideal Realm Limited.
  • M-2018-014 City Savings Bank, Inc/Union Properties, Inc./Petnet, Inc.
  • M-2018-013 Udenna Corporation/The Port Fund LP.
  • M-2018-017 United Technologies Corp/Riveter Merger Sub Corp/Rockwell Collins, Inc.
  • M-2018-016 Microchip Technology Incorporated/Microsemi Corporation.
  • M-2018-018 CSP Alpha Holdings Parent Pte Ltd/StarTek, Inc.
  • M-2018-010 City Savings Bank, Inc/Philippine Resources Savings Banking Corporation.
  • M-2018-019 Suntrust Properties, Inc/Stateland, Inc.
  • M-2018-020 Aisin Seiki Co, Ltd/Toyota Autoparts Philippines, Inc.
  • M-2018-022 Alveo Land Corp/Antel Land Holdings, Inc.
  • M-2018-024 Robinsons Retail Holdings, Inc/Rustan Supercenters, Inc.
  • M-2018-023 Century Properties, Inc/Mitsubishi Corporation.
  • M-2018-025 Citi core Renewable Energy Corporation/Enfinity Philippines Renewable Resources Fourth, Inc.
  • M-2018-026 AXA SA/XL Group Ltd.
  • M-2018-027 SYNNEX Corporation/Convergys Corporation.
  • M-2018-029 Carmelray Property Holdings, Inc/Lopez, Inc/San Ramon Holdings, Inc/CVY Property Holdings, Inc/Juan Miguel V. Yulo/Maria Rosario Y Ng/Ma Cristina Y So/Maria Luisa Y Teehankee/Carmen V Yulo.
  • M-2018-028 The Walt Disney Company/Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc.
  • M-2018-031 Macsteel Global SARL BV/MSSA Investments BV.
  • M-2018-030 Autohub Group Capital Holdings, Inc/Global City Auto Sales, Inc doing business under the name and style of Ford Global City/Ford Manila/Ford Global.
  • M-2018-032 ORIX Aviation Systems Limited/Avolon Holdings Limited.
  • M-2018-035 Coca-Cola South Asia Holdings, Inc/Coca-Cola Holdings (Overseas) Limited/Coca-Cola FEMSA Philippines, Inc.
  • M-2018-036 Salon De Rose, Inc/New Trading Enterprise, Inc/Berovan Marketing, Inc/Mulgrave Corporation BV.
  • M-2018-040 KEPCO Philippines Holdings, Inc/Solar Philippines Calatagan Corporation.
  • M-2018-038 AC Education, Inc/iPeople, Inc.
  • M-2018-037 Freeport Indonesia/PT Indonesia Asahan Aluminum (Persero).
  • M-2018-021 Universal Robina Corporation/Central Azucarera Don Pedro, Inc.
Reform proposals

Are there current proposals to change the legislation?

None, as the legislation on this matter was enacted in mid-2015.

Update and trends

Key developments of the past year

What were the key cases, decisions, judgments and policy and legislative developments of the past year?

No updates at this time.