This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-11-26 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, the petitioner properly argued that the PNCC, being a private business entity, was not immune from suit. The PNCC was incorporated in 1966 under its original name of Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP) for a term of fifty years pursuant to the Corporation Code.[17] In 1983, the CDCP changed its corporate name to the PNCC to reflect the extent of the Government's equity investment in the company, a situation that came about after the government financial institutions converted their loans into equity following the CDCP's inability to pay the loans.[18] Hence, the Government owned 90.3% of the equity of the PNCC, and only 9.70% of the PNCC's voting equity remained under private ownership.[19] Although the majority or controlling shares of the PNCC belonged to the Government, the PNCC was essentially a private corporation due to its having been created in accordance with the Corporation Code, the general corporation statute.[20] More specifically, the PNCC was an acquired asset corporation under Administrative Order No. 59, and was subject to the regulation and jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission.[21] Consequently, the doctrine of sovereign immunity had no application to the PNCC. | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The government's ownership of PNCC's toll assets and facilities inevitably results in the government's ownership of the toll fees and the net income derived from these toll assets and facilities. Thus, the toll fees form part of the National Government's General Fund, which includes public moneys of every sort and other resources pertaining to any agency of the government.[61] Even Radstock's counsel admits that the toll fees are public funds, to wit:ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO: | |||||
|
2007-10-05 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| Finally, it has been settled in Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Pabion[63] that PNCC is an acquired asset corporation and not a government-owned and/or controlled corporation (GOCC). In said case, we held that PNCC did not lose its status as a private corporation upon acquisition by the government through GFIs of the majority of its shares of stock. Our determination that PNCC is an acquired asset corporation removed it from the category of a GOCC. Thus, while the SEC has no jurisdiction over GOCCs with original charter or created by special law primarily because they are governed by their charters, it retains jurisdiction over government-acquired asset corporations. Therefore, the SEC may compel PNCC to hold a stockholders' meeting for the purpose of electing members of the latter's board of directors. | |||||