Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Information | Reference
Case Title:
DEMOSTHENES P. AGAN, JR.,
JOSEPH B. CATAHAN, JOSE MARI B.
REUNILLA, MANUEL ANTONIO B. 612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
BOÑE, MAMERTO S. CLARA, REUEL
Agan, Jr. vs. Philippine International Air Terminals Co.,
E. DIMALANTA, MORY V. DOMALAON, Inc.
CONRADO G. DIMAANO, LOLITA R.
HIZON, REMEDIOS P. ADOLFO, *
G.R. No. 155001. May 5, 2003.
BIENVENIDO C. HILARIO, MIASCOR
WORKERS UNION-NATIONAL LABOR
UNION (MWU-NLU), and PHILIPPINE DEMOSTHENES P. AGAN, JR., JOSEPH B. CATAHAN,
JOSE MARI B. REUNILLA, MANUEL ANTONIO B.
AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
BOÑE, MAMERTO S. CLARA, REUEL E. DIMALANTA,
(PALEA), petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE
MORY V. DOMALAON, CONRADO G. DIMAANO,
INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS LOLITA R. HIZON, REMEDIOS P. ADOLFO,
CO., INC., MANILA INTERNATIONAL BIENVENIDO C. HILARIO, MIASCOR WORKERS
AIRPORT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT UNION-NATIONAL LABOR UNION (MWU-NLU), and
OF TRANSPORTATION AND PHILIPPINE AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
COMMUNICATIONS and SECRETARY (PALEA), petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL
LEANDRO M. MENDOZA, in his AIR TERMINALS CO., INC., MANILA INTERNATIONAL
capacity as Head of the Department AIRPORT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF
of Transportation and TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS and
Communications, respondents., SECRETARY LEANDRO M. MENDOZA, in his capacity as
SALACNIB F. BATERINA, CLAVEL A. Head of the Department of Transportation and
MARTINEZ and CONSTANTINO G. Communications, respondents.
JARAULA, petitioners, vs.
PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR
TERMINALS CO., INC., MANILA MIASCOR GROUNDHANDLING CORPORATION,
DNATAWINGS AVIATION SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
MACROASIAEUREST SERVICES, INC., MACROASIA-
AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF
MENZIES AIRPORT SERVICES CORPORATION,
TRANSPORTATION AND MIASCOR CATERING SERVICES CORPORATION,
COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT MIASCOR AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE CORPORATION,
OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, and MIASCOR LOGISTICS CORPORATION, petitioners-
SECRETARY LEANDRO M. MENDOZA, in-intervention.
in his capacity as Head of the
Department of Transportation and G.R. No. 155547. May 5, 2003.
*
615
VOL. 402, MAY 5, 2003 615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
_______________
633
635
637
639
_______________
640
_______________
641
_______________
642
643
tions at the NAIA IPT III, the Government shall cause the
closure of Ninoy Aquino International Airport Passenger
Terminals I and II as international passenger terminals.
With respect to existing concession agreements between
MIAA and international airport service providers
regarding certain services or operations, the 1997
Concession Agreement and the ARCA uniformly provide
that such services or operations will not be carried over to
the NAIA IPT III and PIATCO is under no obligation to
permit such carry over except through 8
a separate
agreement duly entered into with PIATCO.
With respect to the petitioning service providers and
their employees, upon the commencement of operations of
the NAIA IPT III, they allege that they will be effectively
barred from providing international airline airport services
at the NAIA Terminals I and II as all international airlines
and passengers will be diverted to the NAIA IPT III. The
petitioning service providers will thus be compelled to
contract with PIATCO alone for such services, with no
assurance that subsisting contracts with MIAA and other
international airlines will be respected. Petitioning service
providers stress that despite the very competitive market,
the substantial capital investments required and the high
rate of fees, they entered into their respective contracts
with the MIAA with the understanding that the said
contracts will be in force for the stipulated period, and
thereafter, renewed so as to allow each of the petitioning
service providers to recoup their investments and obtain a
reasonable return thereon.
Petitioning employees of various service providers at the
NAIA Terminals I and II and of MIAA on the other hand
allege that with the closure of the NAIA Terminals I and II
as international passenger terminals under the PIATCO
Contracts, they stand to lose employment.
The question on legal standing is whether such parties
have „alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which
sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court
so largely depends for illumina-
_______________
644
9
tion of difficult constitutional questions.‰ Accordingly, it
has been held that the interest of a person assailing the
constitutionality of a statute must be direct and personal.
He must be able to show, not only that the law or any
government act is invalid, but also that he sustained or is
in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a
result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers
thereby in some indefinite way. It must appear that the
person complaining has been or is about to be denied some
right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he
is about to be subjected to some burdens10 or penalties by
reason of the statute or act complained of.
We hold that petitioners have the requisite standing. In
the above-mentioned cases, petitioners have a direct and
substantial interest to protect by reason of the
implementation of the PIATCO Contracts. They stand to
lose their source of livelihood, a property right which is
zealously protected by the Constitution. Moreover,
subsisting concession agreements between MIAA and
petitioners-intervenors and service contracts between
international airlines and petitioners-intervenors stand to
be nullified or terminated by the operation of the NAIA
IPT III under the PIATCO Contracts. The financial
prejudice brought about by the PIATCO Contracts on
petitioners and petitioners-intervenors in these cases are
legitimate interests sufficient to confer on them the
requisite standing to file the instant petitions.
_______________
9 Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato, G.R. No. 118910, July 17, 1995, 246
SCRA 540, 562-563, citing Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 7 L. Ed. 633
(1962).
10 Id.; Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000, 342
SCRA 449, 478.
11 Rollo, G.R. No. 155547, p. 12.
645
_______________
16 Id.
Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742, July 14, 1989, 175 SCRA
343, 364-365 [1989].
646
_______________
647
_______________
648
649
_______________
650
6. Basis of Pre-qualification
The basis for the pre-qualification shall be on the compliance
of the proponent to the minimum technical and financial
requirements provided in the Bid Documents and in the IRR of
the BOT Law, R.A. No. 6957, as amended by R.A. 7718.
The minimum amount of equity to which the proponentÊs
financial capability will be based shall be thirty percent (30%) of
the project cost instead of the twenty percent (20%) specified in
Section 3.6.4 of the Bid Documents. This is to correlate with the
required debt-to-equity ratio of 70:30 in Section 2.01a of the draft
concession agreement. The debt portion of the project financing
should not exceed 70% of the actual project cost.
_______________
capital stock and the shares of stock that are subscribed and paid-up.
651
_______________
652
_______________
29
653
VOL. 402, MAY 5, 2003 653
Agan, Jr. vs. Philippine International Air Terminals Co.,
Inc.
_______________
93359, July 12, 1991, 199 SCRA 134, 146-147. Emphasis supplied.
654
_______________
655
_______________
656
The Court agrees with the contention of counsel for the plaintiffs
that the due execution of a contract after public bidding is a
limitation upon the right of the contracting parties to alter or
amend it without another public bidding, for otherwise what
would a public bidding be good for if after the execution of a
contract after public bidding, the contracting parties may alter or
amend the contract, or even cancel it, at their will? Public
biddings are held for the protection of the public, and to give the
public the best possible advantages by means of open
competition between the bidders. He who bids or offers the best
terms is awarded the contract subject of the bid, and it is obvious
that such protection and best possible advantages to the public
will disappear if the parties to a contract executed after public
bidding 35may alter or amend it without another previous public
bidding.
_______________
657
_______________
658
_______________
659
_______________
40 Emphasis supplied.
660
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Agan, Jr. vs. Philippine International Air Terminals Co.,
Inc.
_______________
Agreement.
42 Section 6.05 Interim Adjustment
661
662
663
_______________
664
_______________
665
666
_______________
48 Emphasis supplied.
49 Concession Agreement, Art. 4, Sec. 4.04 (b) and (c), Art. 1, Sec.
1.06, July 12, 1997.
50 Ibid.
667
_______________
52 Record of the Senate Second Regular Session 1993-1994, vol. III, no. 42, p.
362.
53 Republic Act No. 7718, Secs. 2 and 4-A, Implementing Rules and
Regulations, Rule 11, Secs. 11.1 and 11.3.
668
669
_______________
670
_______________
58 North Negros Sugar Co., Inc. v. Hidalgo, G.R. No. 42334, October
31, 1936; Intestate estate of the deceased Florentino San Gil. Josefa R.
Oppus v. Bonifacio San Gil, G.R. No. 48115, October 12, 1942; San
Diego v. Municipality of Naujan, G.R. No. L-9920, February 29, 1960;
Favis vs. Municipality of Sabañgan, G.R. No. L-26522, 27 February
1969, 27 SCRA 92; City of Manila vs. Tarlac Development Corporation,
L-24557, L-24469 & L-24481, 31 July 1968, 24 SCRA 466; In the matter
of the Petition for Declaratory Judgment on Title to Real Property
(Quieting of Title) Pechueco Sons Company v. Provincial Board of
Antique, G.R. No. L-27038, January 30, 1970, 31 SCRA 320; Fornilda v.
The Branch 164, Regional
672
_______________
Trial Court IVth Judicial Region, Pasig, G.R. No. L-72306, October 5,
1988, 166 SCRA 281; Laurel v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No.
71562, October 28, 1991, 203 SCRA 195; Davac v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 106105, April 21, 1994, 231 SCRA 665.
59 Republic Act No. 7718, Sec. 1.
61 Id.
673
_______________
62 Except for providing for the suspension of all payments due to the
674
63
Terminal and/or Terminal Complex.‰ Article XII, section
17 of the 1987 Constitution envisions a situation wherein
the exigencies of the times necessitate the government to
„temporarily take over or direct the operation of any
privately owned public utility or business affected with
public interest.‰ It is the welfare and interest of the public
which is the paramount consideration in determining
whether or not to temporarily take over a particular
business. Clearly, the State in effecting the temporary
takeover is exercising its police power. Police power is64 the
„most essential, insistent, and illimitable of powers.‰ Its
exercise therefore must not be unreasonably hampered nor
its exercise be a source of obligation by the government in 65
the absence of damage due to arbitrariness of its exercise.
Thus, requiring the government to pay reasonable
compensation for the reasonable use of the property
pursuant to the operation of the business contravenes the
Constitution.
V Regulation of Monopolies
Sec. 19. The state shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when the
public interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade
or unfair competition shall be allowed.
Clearly, monopolies are not per se prohibited by the
Constitution but may be permitted to exist to aid the
government in carry-
_______________
63 Id.
64 Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Co., Inc. v. Presidential
Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 75885, May 27, 1987, 150
SCRA 181; citing Freund, The Police Power (Chicago, 1904).
65 Genuino v. Court of Agrarian Relations, G.R. No. L-25035,
675
_______________
L ed 394.
68 Concession Agreement („CA‰) dated July 12, 1997, Art. III, Sec.
70 Id., at CA, Art. III, Sec. 3.02(b); ARCA, Art. III, Sec. 3.02(b).
and (b).
676
_______________
73 Id., at CA, Art. Ill, Sec. 3.01(d) and (e); ARCA, Art. III, Sec. 3.01(d) and (e).
74 Executive Order No. 903, as amended, Sec. 4 (b) and (c).
75 Art. XII, Sec. 19, Philippine Constitution.
76 Republic Act No. 7718, Sec. 1.
677
_______________
678
and the ARCA did not strip government, thru the MIAA, of
its right to supervise the operation of the whole NAIA
complex, including NAIA IPT III. As the primary
79
government agency tasked with the job, it is MIAAÊs
responsibility to ensure that whoever by contract is given
the right to operate NAIA IPT III will do so within the
bounds of the law and with due regard to the rights of
third parties and above all, the interest of the public.
VI CONCLUSION
_______________
679
SEPARATE OPINION
VITUG, J.:
_______________
680
_______________
490 (1996); Mafinco Trading Corporation vs. Ople, 70 SCRA 139 (1976).
3 Mafinco Trading Corporation vs. Ople, supra.
681
SEPARATE OPINION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Hierarchy of Courts
The Court has, in the past, held that questions relating to
gargantuan government
2
contracts ought to be settled
without delay. This holding applies with greater force to
the instant cases. Respondent Piatco is partly correct in
averring that petitioners can obtain relief from the
regional trial courts via an action to annul the contracts.
Nevertheless, the unavoidable consequence of having to
await the rendition and the finality of any such judgment
would be a prolonged state of uncertainty that would be
prejudicial to the nation, the parties and the general
public. And, in light of the feared loss of jobs of the
petitioning workers, consequent to the inevitable
pretermination of contracts of the petitioning service
_______________
1 See Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Guingona, Jr., 232 SCRA 110, May 5, 1994;
and Basco v. Phil. Amusements and Gaming Corporation, 197 SCRA 52,
May 14, 1991.
2 Commission on Elections v. Quijano-Padilla, G.R. No. 151992,
683
Arbitration
Should the dispute be referred to arbitration prior to
judicial recourse? Respondent Piatco claims that Section
10.02 of the Amended and Restated Concession Agreement
(ARCA) provides for arbitration under the auspices of the
International Chamber of Commerce to settle any dispute
or controversy or claim arising in connection with the
Concession Agreement, its amendments and supplements.
The government disagrees, however, insisting that there
can be no arbitration based on Section 10.02 of the ARCA,
since all the Piatco contracts are void ab initio. Therefore,
all contractual provisions, including Section 10.02 of the
ARCA, are likewise void, inexistent and inoperative. To
support its stand, the government cites Chavez v.
6
Presidential Commission on Good Government: „The void
agreement will not be rendered operative by the partiesÊ
alleged performance (partial or full) of their respective
prestations. A contract that violates the Constitution and
the law is null and void ab initio and vests no rights and
creates no obligations. It produces no legal effect at all.‰
As will be discussed at length later, the Piatco contracts
are indeed void in their entirety; thus, a resort to the
aforesaid provision
_______________
684
684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Agan, Jr. vs. Philippine International Air Terminals Co.,
Inc.
Locus Standi
Given this CourtÊs previous decisions in cases of similar
import, no one will seriously doubt that, being taxpayers
and members of the House of Representatives, Petitioners
Baterina, et al., have locus standi to bring the Petition in
7
GR No. 155547. In Albano v. Reyes, this Court held that
the petitioner therein, suing as a citizen, taxpayer and
member of the House of Representatives, was sufficiently
clothed with standing to bring the suit questioning the
validity of the assailed contract. The Court cited the fact
that public interest was involved, in view of the important
role of the Manila International Container Terminal
(MICT) in the countryÊs economic development and the
magnitude of the financial consideration. This,
notwithstanding the fact that expenditure of public funds
was not required under the assailed contract.
In the cases presently under consideration, petitionersÊ
personal and substantial interest in the controversy is
shown by the fact that certain provisions in the Piatco
contracts create obligations on the part of government
(through the DOTC and the MIAA) to disburse public
funds without prior congressional appropriations.
Petitioners thus correctly assert that the injury to them
has a twofold aspect: (1) they are adversely affected as
taxpayers on account of the illegal disbursement of public
funds; and (2) they are prejudiced qua legislators, since the
contractual provisions requiring the government to incur
expenditures without appropriations also operate as
limitations upon the exclusive power and prerogative of
Congress over the public purse. As members of the
_______________
685
686
8
gona, Jr. that „in cases of transcendental importance, the
Court may relax the standing requirements and allow a
suit to prosper even when there is no direct injury to the
9
party claiming the right of judicial review.‰
_______________
8 Supra, Paras, J.
9 As reiterated in Bayan (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) v. Zamora,
342 SCRA 449, 480-481, October 10, 2000.
10 RA No. 6957 as amended by RA No. 7718.
687
_______________
688
12 Initially the minimum equity was set at 20%, per Sec. 3.6.4 of the
Bid Documents. However, this was later clarified in Bid Bulletin No.
3(B)(6) to read 30% of Project Cost, to bring the same in line with the
draft concession agreementÊs Art. II Sec. 2.01 (a), which specifically set
the projectÊs debt-to-equity ratio at 70:30, thereby requiring a minimum
equity of 30% of project cost.
13 The consortium was composed of Paircargo, PAGS and Security
689
_______________
690
_______________
691
VOL. 402, MAY 5, 2003 691
Agan, Jr. vs. Philippine International Air Terminals Co.,
Inc.
_______________
692
_______________
695
_______________
696
697
_______________
699
_______________
700
_______________
701
_______________
32 As cf. Annex „G‰ of the ARCA vis-à-vis Annex „G‰ of the CA.
33 Cf. §8.04(d) of the ARCA vis-à-vis §9.01 (d) of the CA.
34 Cf §2.05 of the ARCA vis-à-vis §2.05 of the CA.
the CA.
38 Cf §8.03(a) (i) of the ARCA vis-à-vis §8.06(a) (i) of the CA.
702
39
tion of all Public Utility Revenues. No such
obligation existed previously.
11. Government is now also obligated to perform and
cause other persons and entities under its direct or
indirect control to perform all acts necessary to
perfect the security interests40to be created in favor
of PiatcoÊs Senior Lenders. No such obligation
existed previously.
12. DOTC/MIAAÊs right of intervention in instances
where PiatcoÊs Non-Public Utility Revenues 41
become
exorbitant or excessive has been removed.
13. The illegality and unenforceability of the ARCA or
any of its material provisions was made an event of
default on the part of government only, thus
constituting
42
a ground for Piatco to terminate the
ARCA.
14. Amounts due from and payable by government
under the contract were made payable on demand
·net of taxes, levies, imposts, duties, charges or
43
fees of any kind except as required by law.
15. The Parametric Formula in the contract, which is
utilized to compute for adjustments/increases to the
public utility revenues (i.e., aircraft parking and
tacking fees, checkin counter fee and terminal fee),
was revised to permit Piatco to input its more
costly short-term borrowing rates instead of the
longer-terms rates in the computations for
adjustments, with the end result that the changes
will redound to its greater financial benefit.
16. The Certificate of Completion simply deleted the
successful performance-testing of the terminal
facility in accordance with defined performance
standards as a precondition for 44
governmentÊs
acceptance of the terminal facility.
_______________
44 Cf. §§1.11(b) and 5.06 of the ARCA vis-à-vis §§1.11(b) and 5.06 of
the CA.
703
_______________
704
_______________
705
VOL. 402, MAY 5, 2003 705
Agan, Jr. vs. Philippine International Air Terminals Co.,
Inc.
Interchange; and 52
removal of squatters along
Andrews Avenue.
(e) Dealing directly with BCDA and the Phil. Air Force
in acquiring additional land or right of way
53
for the
road upgrade and improvement program.
_______________
706
_______________
707
_______________
708
709
710
_______________
61 Page 37.
711
VOL. 402, MAY 5, 2003 711
Agan, Jr. vs. Philippine International Air Terminals Co.,
Inc.
713
_______________
714
A Prohibited Direct
Government Subsidy,
Which at the Same Time
Is an Assault on the
National Honor
Still another contractual provision offensive to law and
public policy is Section 8.01 (d) of the ARCA, which is a
„bolder and badder‰ version of Section 8.04(d) of the CA.
It will be recalled that Section 4-A of the BOT Law as
amended prohibits not only direct government guarantees,
but likewise a direct government subsidy for unsolicited
proposals. Section 13.2. b. iii. of the 1999 IRR defines a
direct government subsidy as encompassing „an agreement
whereby the Government x x x will x x x postpone any
payments due from the proponent.‰
Despite the statutory ban, Section 8.01 (d) of the ARCA
provides thus:
715
_______________
63 Namely, the airports at the Subic Bay Freeport Special Economic
717
718
_______________
719
a) x x x xxx xxx
b) In the event the Agreement is terminated pursuant to
Section 8.01(b) hereof, Concessionaire shall be entitled to
collect the Liquidated Damages specified in Annex ÂGÊ.
The full payment by GRP to Concessionaire of the
Liquidated Damages shall be a condition precedent to the
transfer by Concessionaire to GRP of the Development
Facility. Prior to the full payment of the Liquidated
Damages, Concessionaire shall to the extent practicable
continue to operate the Terminal and the Terminal
Complex and shall be entitled to retain and withhold all
payments to GRP for the purpose of offsetting the same
against the Liquidated Damages. Upon full payment of
the Liquidated Damages, Concessionaire shall
immediately transfer the Development Facility to GRP
on Âas-is-where-isÊ basis.‰
„(b) On the In-Service Date, GRP shall cause the closure of the Ninoy Aquino
International Airport Passenger Terminals I and II as international passenger
terminals in order to allow Concessionaire, during the entire Concession Period,
to exclusively operate a commercial international passenger terminal within the
island of Luzon; provided that the aforesaid exclusive right to operate a
commercial international passenger terminal shall be without prejudice to the
international passenger terminal operations already existing on the date of this
Agreement in SBFSEZ, CSEZ and Laoag City (but subject to the limitation with
regard to CSEZ referred to in Section 3.02[a]). Neither shall GRP, DOTC or MIAA
use or permit the use of Terminals I and/or II under any arrangement or scheme,
for compensation or otherwise, with any party which would directly or indirectly
compete with Concessionaire in the latterÊs operation of and the operations in the
Terminal and Terminal Complex, including without limitation the use of
Terminals I and/or II for the handling of international traffic; provided that if
Terminals I and/or II are operated as domestic passenger terminals, the conduct
of any activity therein which under the ordinary course of operating a domestic
passenger terminal is normally undertaken, shall not be considered to be in
direct or indirect competition with Concessionaire in its operation of the
Development Facility.‰
721
_______________
„(d) For the purpose of an orderly transition, MIAA shall not renew any expired
concession agreement relative to any service or operation currently being
undertaken at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Passenger Terminal I, or
extend any concession agreement which may expire subsequent hereto, except to
the extent that the continuation of existing services and operations shall lapse on
or before the In-Service Date. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit
MIAA from maintaining arrangements for the uninterrupted provision of
essential services at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Passenger Terminal
I until the Terminal shall have commenced operations on the In-Service Date,
and thereafter, from making such arrangements as are necessary for the
utilization of NAIA Passenger Terminal I as a domestic passenger terminal or as
a facility other than an international passenger terminal.
„(e) GRP confirms that certain concession agreements relative to certain services
or operations currently being undertaken at the Ninoy Aquino International
Airport Passenger Terminal I have a validity period extending beyond the In-
Service Date. GRP, through DOTC/MIAA, confirms that these services and
operations shall not be carried over to the Terminal and that Concessionaire is
under no legal obligation to permit such carry-over except through a separate
agreement duly entered into with Concessionaire. In the event Concessionaire
becomes involved in any litigation initiated by any such concessionaire or
operator, GRP undertakes and hereby holds Concessionaire free and harmless on
a full indemnity basis from and against any loss and/or liability resulting from
any such litigation, including the cost of litigation and the reasonable fees paid or
payable to ConcessionaireÊs counsel of choice, all such amounts being fully
deductible by way of an offset from any amount which Concessionaire is bound to
pay GRP under this Agreement.‰
722
_______________
723
74
wholly-owned subsidiary of Friendship Holdings, 75
Inc.,
which is in turn owned 80 percent by PAGS. PAGS is a 76
service provider owned 60 percent by the Cheng77
Family;
it is a stockholder of 35 percent of Piatco and is the
latterÊs
78
designated contractor-operator for NAIA Terminal
III.
Such entry into and domination of the airport-related
services sector appear to be very much in line with the
following provisions contained in the79
First Addendum to
the Piatco Shareholders Agreement, executed on July 6,
1999, which appear to constitute a sort of master plan to
create a monopoly and combinations in restraint of trade:
a. x x x xxx x x x;
b. That (Phil. Airport and Ground Services, Inc.) PAGS
and/or its designated Affiliates shall, at all times during
the Concession Period, be exclusively authorized by
(PIATCO) to engage in the provision of groundhandling,
catering and fueling services within the Terminal
Complex.
c. That PAIRCARGO and/or its designated Affiliate shall,
during the Concession Period, be the only entities
authorized to construct and operate a warehouse for all
cargo handling and related services within the Site.‰
_______________
724
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Agan, Jr. vs. Philippine International Air Terminals Co.,
Inc.
_______________
725
726
_______________
87 Ibid.
727
728
90
all contracts, and/or the 91
right to make a contract in
relation to oneÊs business.
_______________
729
_______________
730
_______________
732
_______________
733
EPILOGUE
What Do We Do Now?
734
_______________
736
··o0o··
737