A British lending firm has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to reconsider its ruling that declared the P6.2-billion compromise agreement the firm entered into with the state-owned Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) as null and void for being unconstitutional.

In a 64-page motion for reconsideration (MR), British lending firm Radstock Securities Limited through its lawyer, Pacifico Agabin, asked the Court to reconsider its December 6 ruling. The Court, voting 8-4, granted the petition filed by PNCC stockholder Luis Sision, seeking to declare the compromise agreement null and void.

In its MR, the Radstock denied that the compromise agreement would leave PNCC’s coffers empty. Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, who penned the decision, described the compromise agreement as “one of the most brazen and hideous pillage of public coffers” in the country’s history agreement.

“PNCC will not be disposing of all or substantially all of its assets if the compromise agreement is enforce as it continues to have substantial assets and remains a going concern with significant cash balances,” Radstock said in its MR.

The Radstock said PNCC will remain profitable because it will still have a 50 percent interest in the six percent of gross revenues of North Luzon Expressway (NLEX) which is expected to bring in an amount of P9.38 billion to the company in the coming years and three percent participation in the gross revenues of the new South Luzon Tollways Corporation, valued at P6.3 billion.

“The PNCC still has a 2.5 shareholding in the Manila North Tollways Corporation valued at P159 million; 20 percent holdings in Tollways Management Corp. (TMC), the management company of NLEX; 20 percent shares in Citra Metro Manila Tollway Corporation, which owns the Skyway, valued at P300 million; and 40 percent equity holdings in MATESI, the management company of the concession holder of SLEX,” said the Radstock.

Likewise, Radstock refuted the Court’s ruling that the compromise agreement violates Sections 3 and 7 of Article XII of the Constitution which bars private foreign corporation from owning lands in the Philippines.

The Radstock explained that PNCC’s obligation to cede rights over several lots to qualified assignees does not amount to transfer of ownership of land to Radstock, thus, there was no violation of the said constitutional provision.