JG
Summit Holdings INC. vs. Court of Appeals | G.R. No. 124293 January 31, 2005
Facts: The National Investment and Development Corporation
(NIDC), a government corporation, entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA)
with Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. of Kobe, Japan (KAWASAKI) for the
construction, operation and management of the Subic National Shipyard Inc.,
(SNS) which subsequently became the Philippine Shipyard and Engineering
Corporation (PHILSECO).
Under
the JVA, the NDC and KAWASAKI will contribute P330M for the capitalization of
PHILSECO in the proportion of 60%-40% respectively. One of its salient features is the grant to
the parties of the right of first refusal should either of them decide to sell,
assign or transfer its interest in the joint venture.
NIDC
transferred all its rights, title and interest in PHILSECO to the Philippine
National Bank (PNB). Such interests were subsequently transferred to the
National Government pursuant to an Administrative Order.
When
the former President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 50 establishing the
Committee on Privatization (COP) and the Asset Privatization Trust (APT) to
take title to, and possession of, conserve, manage and dispose of
non-performing assets of the National Government, a trust agreement was entered
into between the National Government and the APT wherein the latter was named
the trustee of the National Government’s share in PHILSECO.
In
the interest of the national economy and the government, the COP and the APT
deemed it best to sell the National Government’s share in PHILSECO to private
entities. After a series of negotiations
between the APT and KAWASAKI , they agreed that the latter’s right of first
refusal under the JVA be “exchanged” for the right to top by 5%, the highest
bid for the said shares. They further
agreed that KAWASAKI woul.d be entitled to name a company in which it was a
stockholder, which could exercise the right to top. KAWASAKI then informed APT that Philyards
Holdings, Inc. (PHI) would exercise its right to top.
At
the public bidding, petitioner J.G. Summit Holdings Inc. submitted a bid of Two
Billion and Thirty Million Pesos (Php2,030,000,000.00) with an acknowledgement
of KAWASAKI/PHILYARDS right to top.
As
petitioner was declared the highest bidder, the COP approved the sale “subject
to the right of Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Inc. / PHILYARDS Holdings Inc. to
top JG’s bid by 5% as specified in the bidding rules.”
On
the other hand, the respondent by virtue of right to top by 5%, the highest bid
for the said shares timely exercised the same.
Petitioners,
in their motion for reconsideration, raised, inter alia, the issue on the
maintenance of the 60%-40% relationship between the NIDC and KAWASAKI arising
from the Constitution because PHILSECO is a landholding corporation and need
not be a public utility to be bound by the 60%-40% constitutional limitation.
ISSUE:
Whether
under the 1977 Joint Venture Agreement, KAWASAKI can purchase only a maximum of
40% of PHILSECO’s total capitalization.
The right
of first refusal is meant to protect the original or remaining joint
venturer(s) or shareholder(s) from the entry of third persons who are not acceptable
to it as co-venturer(s) or co-shareholder(s). The joint venture between the
Philippine Government and KAWASAKI is in the nature of a partnership36 which, unlike an ordinary corporation, is based on delectus
personae.37 No one can become a member of the partnership association
without the consent of all the other associates. The right of first refusal
thus ensures that the parties are given control over who may become a new
partner in substitution of or in addition to the original partners. Should the
selling partner decide to dispose all its shares, the non-selling partner may
acquire all these shares and terminate the partnership. No person or
corporation can be compelled to remain or to continue the partnership. Of
course, this presupposes that there are no other restrictions in the maximum
allowable share that the non-selling partner may acquire such as the
constitutional restriction on foreign ownership in public utility. The theory
that KAWASAKI can acquire, as a maximum, only 40% of PHILSECO’s shares is
correct only if a shipyard is a public utility. In such instance, the
non-selling partner who is an alien can acquire only a maximum of 40% of the
total capitalization of a public utility despite the grant of first refusal.
The partners cannot, by mere agreement, avoid the constitutional proscription.
But as afore-discussed, PHILSECO is not a public utility and no other
restriction is present that would limit the right of KAWASAKI to purchase the
Government’s share to 40% of Philseco’s total capitalization.
Furthermore,
the phrase “under the same terms” in section 1.4 cannot be given an
interpretation that would limit the right of KAWASAKI to purchase PHILSECO
shares only to the extent of its original proportionate contribution of 40% to
the total capitalization of the PHILSECO. Taken together with the whole of
section 1.4, the phrase “under the same terms” means that a partner to
the joint venture that decides to sell its shares to a third party shall make a
similar offer to the non-selling partner. The selling partner cannot
make a different or a more onerous offer to the non-selling partner.
The exercise of first refusal presupposes that the non-selling
partner is aware of the terms of the conditions attendant to the sale for it to
have a guided choice. While the right of first refusal protects the non-selling
partner from the entry of third persons, it cannot also deprive the other
partner the right to sell its shares to third persons if, under the same offer,
it does not buy the shares.
Apart from the right of first refusal, the parties
also have preemptive rights under section 1.5 in the unissued
shares of Philseco. Unlike the former, this situation does not contemplate
transfer of a partner’s shares to third parties but the issuance of new
Philseco shares. The grant of preemptive rights preserves the proportionate
shares of the original partners so as not to dilute their respective interests
with the issuance of the new shares. Unlike the right of first refusal, a
preemptive right gives a partner a preferential right over the newly issued
shares only to the extent that it retains its original proportionate share in
the joint venture.
The case at bar does not concern the issuance of new shares but
the transfer of a partner’s share in the joint venture. Verily, the operative
protective mechanism is the right of first refusal which does not impose any
limitation in the maximum shares that the non-selling partner may acquire.
RULING:
The court upheld the validity of the mutual rights of first refusal under the
JVA between KAWASAKI and NIDC.
The
right of first refusal is a property right of PHILSECO shareholders, KAWASAKI
and NIDC, under the terms of their JVA.
This right allows them to purchase the shares of their co-shareholder
before they are offered to a third party.
The agreement of co-shareholders to mutually grant this right to each
other, by itself, does not constitute a violation of the provisions of the
Constitution limiting land ownership to Filipinos and Filipino
corporations. As PHILYARDS correctly
puts it, if PHILSECO still owns the land, the right of first refusal can be
validly assigned to a qualified Filipino entity in order to maintain the
60%-40% ration. This transfer by itself,
does not amount to a violation of the Anti-Dummy Laws, absent proof of any
fraudulent intent. The transfer could be
made either to a nominee or such other party which the holder of the right of
first refusal feels it can comfortably do business with.
Alternatively,
PHILSECO may divest of its landholdings, in which case KAWASAKI, in exercising
its right of first refusal, can exceed 40% of PHILSECO’s equity. In fact, in can even be said that if the
foreign shareholdings of a landholding corporation exeeds 40%, it is not the
foreign stockholders’ ownership of the shares which is adversely affected but
the capacity of the corporation to won land—that is, the corporation becomes
disqualified to own land.
This
finds support under the basic corporate law principle that the corporation and
its stockholders are separate judicial entities. In this vein, the right of first refusal over
shares pertains to the shareholders whereas the capacity to own land pertains
to the corporation. Hence, the fact that PHILSECO owns land cannot deprive
stockholders of their right of first refusal. No law disqualifies a person from purchasing shares in a landholding
corporation even if the latter will exceed the allowed foreign equity, what the
law disqualifies is the corporation from owning land.
