0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
11 просмотров1 страница
The case involved the indirect sale of shares in PLDT owned by PTIC to First Pacific, increasing foreign ownership beyond the 40% limit set in the Constitution. The Court previously ruled in favor of the petitioner, and the respondents filed a motion for reconsideration arguing the Court erroneously interpreted the term 'capital'. The Court denied the motion, finding no error in its interpretation that 'capital' refers to shares with voting rights and full beneficial ownership, implying effective control, in line with the Constitution's goal of a Filipino-controlled economy.
The case involved the indirect sale of shares in PLDT owned by PTIC to First Pacific, increasing foreign ownership beyond the 40% limit set in the Constitution. The Court previously ruled in…