Globe maintains position within the bounds of law the joint buyout transaction is deemed approved

Globe logo copy copy

PCC claims of company’s refusal to cooperate has no basis

Globe maintains its legal position that the subject transaction is deemed approved, as it strictly followed the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Philippine Competition Commission’s (PCC) Memorandum Circular No. 16-002. Furthermore, the notice filed by the parties at the PCC last May 30 was in full compliance with, and contains all the information required by Section 2 of MC 16-002.

“The filing of the petition at the Court of Appeals was a necessary legal action to uphold our position against the view of the PCC, which contradicts its own rules by claiming non-compliance. We reiterate the fact that we are just at the beginning of the legal proceedings,” said Globe General Counsel Froilan Castelo.

Contrary to public statements made by the PCC, Globe has been fully cooperative with the government body by providing them with more information and documents in succeeding filings. These submissions were done in good faith and went beyond what the PCC actually requires by their own rules. In addition to these, Globe even sought a dialogue with the PCC to explain its position and answer any concern the PCC may have regarding the transaction.

“There is absolutely no basis therefore, for the PCC to claim that Globe refuses to cooperate. We have clearly exceeded what is required, and cannot produce a non-existent document just to satisfy a PCC demand that has no legal basis,” added Castelo.

Globe will continue to move forward with this transaction, which is a response to the consumers’ demand for additional mobile internet capacity and greater geographic coverage. We remain committed to the continuous improvement of our network and of our quality of service, and call for much-needed support from government to achieve this purpose, he said.

In a related development, Globe, on July 20, 2016, filed an urgent motion for the immediate consolidation of its petition with that of PLDT against PCC. “The similarity of the issues and factual antecedents presented in petitioned filed separately by Globe and PLDT is immediately apparent.” Globe pointed out that both cases stemmed from PCC’s insistence that the 2 telco operators acquisition of the telecommunication assets of San Miguel “is not deemed approved.” The motion filed before the Court of Appeals 6th Division.

“Jurisprudence has declared that the consolidation of cases results in the simplification of proceedings, contributes to the swift dispensation of justice, and the avoidance of the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the courts in two or more cases which would otherwise require a single judgment,” Globe said.

Also, consolidation is a means to serve the best interest of the parties and to settle the issues between them promptly and also avoiding the possibility of conflicting decisions rendered by the courts in two or more cases, it added. Both Globe and PLDT filed separately on July 12, 2016 with the Court of Appeals a petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, maintaining the PCC cannot withhold and block the transaction out of a process not found in their own rules, and not disclosed to the public.