Competition Law: First Abuse of Dominance Case by the

Philippine Competition Commission

October 3, 2019 by Jericho Del Puerto

 This is the first abuse of dominance case in the Philippines making it a landmark case for
the Philippine Competition Commission (PCC).
 A Mass Housing Developer entered into an exclusive deal with its Internet Service Provider
in nine (9) projects across the country.
 The companies admitted to their conduct and proposed a settlement.
 The PCC ordered their breakup, imposed a Php27.11 million fine, and directed them to
comply with the settlement terms and conditions.
 Section 15 of the Philippine Competition Act prohibits exploitative and exclusionary
conduct that substantially lessens competition.

Sometime in March, through a Statement of Objections, the Philippine Competition Commission

(PCC) through its Competition Enforcement Unit charged a Mass Housing Developer with abuse of
confidence. The said company limited unit owners and tenants to a sole Internet Service Provider
(ISP) and thus preventing them from availing of another service. The residents complained that the
in-house ISP service, “Fiber to Deca Homes”, was  slow, expensive, and unreliable.

Section 15 of the Philippine Competition Act prohibits exploitative and exclusionary conduct that
substantially lessens competition. This is the basis for the abuse of dominance charge.

In response, the respondent companies offered to settle and correct their anticompetitive conduct
through a settlement terms, which was made available for public comments and eventually
submitted for resolution.

“Competition—or lack of it—can be felt at home, at work, and in one’s daily activities. The residents
may have chosen Urban Deca as their address, but the condo developer should not limit the choices
of residents for other services,” said PCC Chairman Arsenio M. Balisacan.

Accordingly, the PCC ordered their breakup, imposed a Php27.11 million fine within thirty (30)
days, and directed them to comply with the settlement terms and conditions. While the case
originally stemmed from complainants in Urban Deca Manila in Tondo, the terms applied to eight
(8) other Urban Deca projects in Mandaluyong, Muntinlupa, Bulacan, Cavite, Iloilo, and Cebu.

Acknowledging it as a landmark case for the PCC, Balisacan notes that the regulatory body
“successfully resolved to stop an anticompetitive practice, restore competition in the affected
market, and set as example to deter other businesses from employing similar exclusive dealings.”
“Let this be a warning to businesses that abuse their market power by elbowing out competitors for
their own gain. This case shows that the PCC is serious about addressing anticompetitive practices
that have long been considered par for the course in different industries. Unscrupulous
businessmen can only expect the PCC to pursue more cases of a similar nature in the future,”
Balisacan said.