Highlights of proposed anti-trust bills

"Anti-trust"
by Ducky Paredes
Originally published in Malaya, 04 March 2011, BUSINESS INSIGHT.

"AFTER years of futile attempts, Congress seems to have generated the political will to enact an anti-trust law that would curb the abuses of big business, particularly giant foreign multinational companies that have been getting away with monopolistic and unfair trade practices.

Recently, the Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce held a forum for the discussion of laws aimed at preventing monopolies, combinations in restraint of trade, abuse of dominant power, and unfair competition practices.

The committee invited resource persons from the government and the private sector. They provided valuable inputs and shared their insights on prevailing anti-trust practices. Among them were Undersecretary Zeny Maglaya of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), lawyer Anthony Abad of the Ateneo Center for International Economic Law and consumer advocate Lorna Patajo-Kapunan, who is also a prominent law practitioner.

In particular, Kapunan made a presentation that, among other things, provided clear examples of the unfair trade practices of a foreign multinational that drove several of its Filipino distributors to bankruptcy, resulting in huge financial loses that forced them to lay off hundreds of employees.

Kapunan deplored the weaknesses, ambiguities and inadequacies of current laws "that not only subject our local businessmen to bullying and exploitation but actually encourage these practices because of the leniency of existing legislation."

She pointed out that the bullying behavior of large corporations exerts negative effects on the economy. "Just look at these distributors. They are entrepreneurs who were financially wiped out due to unethical business practices of their principals. Businesses have collapsed, jobs have been lost and many lives have become miserable. That is why we need carefully worded and well-crafted anti-trust legislation,’’ said the lady lawyer who has been engaged in a continuing and sustained campaign for the passage of such legislation.

Lucky for us consumers, as well as for these distributors, key members of the Senate are hot on enacting the needed laws. Precisely for that purpose, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile filed Senate Bill 123, with Senators Ralph Recto and Antonio Trillanes as IV as co-authors.

Similar bills were also filed by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago (S. B. 1838), Sergio Osmeña III (S. B. 150), and Senator Panfilo Lacson (S. B. 1600). Senator Manny Villar has also sponsored Proposed Senate Resolution 123 urging inquiry into cartels and monopolies.

Similar measures have also been filed in the House of Representatives.

The most recent is a bill (in substitution of 12 other similar bills) by Cagayan Congressman Jackie Ponce-Enrile, with Cagayan de Oro City Congressman Rufus Rodriguez as main sponsors with more than 70 other co-authors.

The bill would create an independent Philippine Fair Competition Commission to regulate trade practices, promote ethical business conduct in the country and implement the national policy on fair trade competition. It would penalize anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominant power and anti-competitive mergers.

So what exactly is an anti-trust law? It is one that aims to prevent the emergence of trusts which come in the form of "mergers, acquisition of control, or any act whereby companies, partnerships, shares, equity trusts, among others.

Assets are concentrated among competition, suppliers, customers or any other business entity." Such a situation is considered inimical to public interest as they usually lead to the rise of unlawful monopolies, combinations in restraint of trade, and unfair competition practices.

A monopoly emerges when a certain type of business or industry is concentrated in one group or in the hands of a few. It prevents the existence or the emergence of competition and can result in the control of prices, or the production and distribution of certain goods and commodities. Hence, even legitimate mergers of companies or business consolidations can lead to monopolies.

Combinations in restraint of trade, on the other hand, refer to "an agreement or understanding between two or more persons, in the form of a contract, trust, pool, holding company or other form of association." Its purpose is to restrict competition, monopolize the trading of a certain commodity, and control its pricing, production and distribution. This results in interference in the free flow of trade and commerce, to the prejudice of consumers. Thus is monopoly achieved.

Unfair competition arises when a dominant business resorts to such practices as price manipulation, spreading false information aimed at discrediting competition, monopolizing any merchandise or commodity, or conspiring with other persons to alter the price of certain goods in order to ruin competition and maintain or increase one’s dominance of the market.

Generally, an anti-trust law is intended to harmonize the legal and regulatory system governing the operation of business. It seeks not only to promote the welfare of consumer but also to prevent giant business firms from bullying and exploiting weaker and undercapitalized businesses, particularly the so-called SMEs or the small and medium enterprises.

Anti-trust legislation is anchored on provisions of the Philippine Constitution, particularly Sections 19 and 22 of Article XII. Section 19 provides that "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."

On the other hand, Section 22 calls for the enactment of laws that would impose civil and criminal penalties against parties who violate the prohibitions. This provision specifically states: "Acts which circumvent or negate any of the provisions of this article shall be considered inimical to the national interest and subject to criminal and civil sanctions, as may be provided by law."

Why are others so eager to call for amendments to our constitution, when we have not yet even touched some of the tasks that it mandates for the State?"

*Original article also available online here.

Gaining momentum - the crusade for better anti-trust laws

"Anti-trust laws" by Ducky Paredes.

Published 22 February 2011 in Malaya. (Original article also appears online here).

"IT’S good to know that not everyone in the Senate is taken up by the investigation into the corruption in the military. While that is also important, the reality is that this investigation may just eventually peter out and, as a lot of other legislative investigations "in aid of legislation" have gone, this one could still go the way of a lot of similar investigations that never even merited an official report in the files of the Senate or the House, much less any attempt at legislation that could cure what was investigated.

Hopefully, these will lead to a time when we will be proud of an uncorrupt military, police and government. For that to happen, however, we would need five of six presidents whose holy grail is the "daang tuwid."

In the event that the one after P’Noy is not committed to taking to the straight and narrow, there goes the PH!

Thus, it is good that the Senate has not placed all of its eggs in that one basket ad that Sen. Manny Villar is trying to pass an anti-trust law through the Committee on Trade and Commerce, which he heads.

This is certainly a welcome development, as the Philippines does not have any comprehensive anti-trust law to protect business owners or consumers.

The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), the line agency that is tasked to look after trade and business operations, as well as consumer welfare, does not have the legal ammunition to fight unfair trade practices.

This is precisely why the DTI or relevant government agencies have been ineffective in dealing with or prosecuting blatant price fixing by players in certain industries.

The Competition Act of 2010 was proposed by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, and co-authored by Senators Ralph Recto and Antonio Trillanes.

The public forum also focused on related bills, namely, SB 123 authored by Sen. Sergio Osmeña III, SB 1838 filed by Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago and Senate-Proposed Resolution No. 123 by Villar urging the holding of an inquiry on cartels and monopolies. These long overdue proposed antitrust measures seek to penalize unfair trade, anti-competitive practices and the abuse of dominant power by certain institutions – a.k.a. monopolies, cartels and some big, bad MNCs.

During the forum, Atty. Lorna Kapunan, a friend and one of the champions of this issue, presented a critique on existing legislation on anti-trust. She explained that while there are some existing laws that touch on anti-trust, the provisions do not provide clear-cut guidelines or evidence to determine whether an act constitutes unfair competition, monopolistic behavior or restraint of trade.

Speaking from experience, she shared with legislators the fact that some multinational giants often act like bullies and take advantage of the leniency present in the Philippines in order to get away with violations like predatory pricing.

Kapunan bared the ugly truth that it is very hard to do business in the Philippines if you are a Filipino. Given this bitter reality, it is high time we protect the interests of local entrepreneurs simply because SMEs are the backbone of our economy.

Let’s pass stricter laws that will protect the weak – the Pinoy dealers --from the double dealing and bullying multi-nationals that this column has been writing about for the last several years."

Bullies in the spotlight

"Predatory Nestle" by Ducky Paredes (original article appears here).

NESTLÉ S.A, one of the largest food and nutrition companies in the world, operates in 86 countries and employs 283,000 people. Here, it is Nestlé Philippines, Inc. (NPI).

NPI is once again the subject of complaints, filed by two of its Filipino distributors for allegedly engaging in predatory pricing and for two separate cases of perjury.

What is predatory pricing? Wikipedia defines it as "the practice of selling a product or service at a very low price, intending to drive competitors out of the market, or create barriers to entry for potential new competitors. If competitors or potential competitors cannot sustain equal or lower prices without losing money, they go out of business or choose not to enter the business."

What is surprising here is that the complaint of predatory pricing comes from its own distributors who feel that Nestle itself is the predator that would devour them.

The complainants are Service Edge Distribution, Inc.(SEDI) and its sister firm, FDI Forefront II Trading Corporation (FDI 2). The first has been Nestlé’s distributor for the Caloocan, Malabon, Navotas and Valenzuela (Camanava) area since December 2001 while the latter became the distributor for northwestern Quezon City in July 2003.

The predatory pricing complaint is based on Nestlé’s alleged violation of Article 186 of the Revised Penal Code. Docketed as I.S. No. XV-03-INV-10Q-06071, the case is now pending with Quezon City Assistant City Prosecutor Maribel Arriola. Among the respondents is NPI’s former chairman and CEO Doreswamy Nandkishore, now said to be with the Nestlé main office in Switzerland.

The two distributors say that Nestle, among other things, has been forcing them to sell the company’s products to their own clients at prices controlled and dictated by Nestlé. These price bulletins do not consider the actual cost of distributing these products, and other attendant expenses such as municipal taxes of up to 1 percent of sales. Distributors are compelled to follow the price bulletins under threat of termination of their distributorship contracts.

Apart from this questioned pricing strategy, the two distributors also accuse Nestle of withdrawing its promised marketing support. One specific instance cited was when Nestle allegedly ended the in-house financing of inventories that provided a 30-day credit line to distributors. Nestle used to extend its credit line to 45-60 days without penalty to align it with the actual periods within which the distributors’ own clients usually make the payments.

They said that in place of the in-house financing, and without consultation with its distributors, Nestlé Chief Financial Officer Peter Noszek unilaterally negotiated with different banks whereby the banks would provide distributors with revolving promissory note lines (RPNL) on a strictly 30-day credit limit. Since their own clients usually do not pay within 30 days, the distributors are forced to shoulder higher interest rates and other penalties that increase their operating costs. In effect, Nestlé shifted the cost of financing inventories from Nestlé to the distributors.

Among the allegations was that Nestlé Area Sales Manager Elisa Lupena, "in conspiracy with the other respondents even forced complainant FDI 2 to deliver new supplies to customers that owed FDI 2 more than P1 million in unpaid deliveries." Nestle’s Regional Sales Manager Jose Ceballos, "in conspiracy with his co-respondents, likewise ordered complainant SEDI to give a unilateral discount of five percent (5%) discount to George Cua of the Welcome Group of Quezon City."

The same discounts were purportedly ordered by Ceballos to be given to other wholesalers and supermarket customers in its area. These discounts resulted in losses for the distributors of P8.4 million in 2007 and P8.6 million in 2009. In spite of these losses and additional expenses, they were not allowed to go beyond the prices specified in the price bulletins. The complaint includes the accusation that although additional capital from borrowed money was infused into FDI 2 in compliance with the demand of Nestlé, the company still terminated the former’s distributorship agreement on December 21, 2007, or four days before Christmas Day. Thus, the firm was forced to stop operations and lay off its employees.

The perjury charges were an offshoot of the September 17, 2010 counter-affidavits of four top officials of Nestlé, The four are Nestlé Chairman and CEO John Martin Miller, Regional Sales Manager Jose Ceballos, Chief Financial Officer Peter Noszek, and Business Executive Manager for Liquid Beverages Shahab Bacani.

In their counter-affidavits, the four officials purportedly committed perjury and offered false testimony into evidence. These are alleged in several instances covering the issues of whether incentives and discounts are mere privileges or a matter of right, the infusion of additional capital in FDI 2 and the subsequent termination of its distributorship contract, the supposed indiscretions of Area Sales Manager Lupena, the mediation entered into by the contending parties, the granting of discounts to certain favored wholesalers as ordered by Lupena and Ceballos

The perjury charges also touched on the separate disbarment case filed by the distributors against Nestlé lawyer Aileen Cero for her alleged violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. 02-8-13-SC) when she notarized a document concerning a negotiation wherein she was a participant.

Complainants also cited Nestlé’s claim that that it never acted in an oppressive, unjust or illegal manner in its dealings with its distributors. They referred to the judgment handed down by the Second Division of the Supreme Court in the case of Nestlé Philippines, Inc. vs. FY Sons, Inc. on May 5, 2006 under G. R. No. 150780.

Nestle filed the case in the Makati Regional Trial court which ruled against it and ordered the multinational to pay defendant FY Sons P1 million in actual damages, P100,000 as exemplary damages and P100,000 as attorneys fees.

Nestlé went to the Court of Appeals where it again lost. In fact, the CA even increased to P1.5 million the amount of actual damages that Nestlé was ordered to pay FY Sons. This was for the unjust termination of the distributorship agreement with FY Sons, unfair imposition of fines, and confiscation of the latter’s P500,000 time deposit to secure FY Sons credit purchases.

Nestlé elevated the CA decision to the Supreme Court but was again rebuffed when the High Tribunal, in a decision written by then Associate Justice Renato Corona, affirmed the ruling. The Supreme Court found Nestlé "at fault and (acting) in bad faith."

Banco de Oro (BDO) also sued Nestlé for P109.792 million in damages, together with its distributor, Interbrand Logistics and Distribution, Inc. The case involved hundreds of millions of pesos in loans and credit facilities that the bank extended to Interbrand on the strength of endorsements and certifications that Nestlé made concerning the financial standing and credit worthiness of its distributor. It turned out that the endorsements and certifications were fraudulently issued.

BDO charged the defendants of having "acted in utmost bad faith, and in wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive and malevolent manner." In particular, BDO accused Nestle of having "knowingly made a false representation with intent to mislead the bank into renewing Interbrand’s credit facilities and allowing Interbrand to make further availments under the same to finance the purchase of (its) products which would eventually lead to (its) benefit".

Nestlé Philippines, Inc. is a member of the European Chamber of Commerce. We wonder if there is any action that this organization is contemplating in regard to this particular multinational considering the many complaints lodged against Nestlé Philippines, Inc..

***

Readers who missed a column can access www.duckyparedes.com/blogs. This is updated daily. Your reactions are welcome at duckyparedes@yahoo.com