MEMORANDUM

TO: Juan dela Cruz

FROM: Carlo John C. Ruelan

DATE: 03/27/2023

RE: A comprehensive legal analysis on Commission Decision No. 01-E-001/2019 and its legal
applicability on the case in issue.

QUESTION/ISSUE PRESENTED

1. Whether or not the arrangement entered into between the recipient, Juan dela Cruz as
Condominium Developer with an internet provider is similar to the Commission Decision No. 01-
E-001/2019, thus, constitute abuse of dominant position.

BRIEF ANSWER

2. Yes. The similar arrangement entered into between Juan dela Cruz and the internet service
provider constitute abuse of dominant position.

3. Condominium developers are in a dominant position within the meaning of Sec. 15 of the
Philippine Competition Law by reason of their de facto monopoly over the area where they
develop. Being the developer of their own condominium units, they hold position of economic
strength making them capable of controlling the relevant market independently from any
competitors or suppliers of services.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
4. UDH Manila Condominium Corporation (“UDH Manila Condo Corp”) and 8990 Holdings, Inc. (“8990
Holdings” and together with the Enforcement Office and UDH Manila Conde Corp, the “Parties”) for
entering into a contractual arrangement that resulted in a situation wherein the internet services in nine (9)
of their condominium projects were provided only by Fiber to Deca Homes (“FTDH?), in violation of
Section 15 of the Philippine Competition Act.

DISCUSSION

5. UDH & 8990 Holdings contractual arrangement with FDTH as sole and only supplier of internet
services to the residents of the former’s 9 properties constitutes abuse of dominant position and
an anti-competitive agreement.

6. Discuss the relevant product marker and relevant geographic market. The relevant product
market in this case is the internet service which is interchangeable or substitutable by the
users. The relevant geographic market comprises the area in which the entity concerned
is involved. In this case, it is limited only to those properties developed and constructed
by UDH & 8990 Holdings.

7. Discuss the existence of dominant position and the abuse of such

 UDH & 8990 Holdings enjoyed, as a consequence of being the developer of those 9 properties,
clearly held at that time a dominant position. The residents were put in a situation of being
economically dependent to the internet service provider contracted by UDH & 8990 Holdings.
Being the developer, they have the position of economic strength to prevent effective
competition by restricting the supply of other internet services.

The abuse of dominant position, restrictive agreement no justification why they are the only
source of internet services. By their conduct, they reserve to themselves the monopoly of
supplying internet service into their 9 properties by excluding all competition in the market.

8. By sub-section analysis

9. Refusal to supply

CONCLUSION

10. Based on the analysis of the Commission’s Decision on UDH/8990 Holdings case, the similar
arrangement you entered with the internet service provider if it has the same commitments,
terms and conditions set may be decided by the Commission similarly.