Title
Atienza vs. Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office
Case
G.R. No. L-4010
Decision Date
Nov 29, 1951
Plaintiff failed to claim P3,000 prize after selling winning ticket due to not meeting contractual requirement of purchasing five booklets; Supreme Court upheld dismissal, citing strict compliance with terms and no obligation on PCSO to ensure ticket availability.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G. R. No. 96357)

Facts:

  1. Contractual Agreement:

    • Plaintiff Nieves P. Atienza entered into a contract with the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) on or before February 27, 1947, to become an authorized agent for selling sweepstakes tickets.
    • Paragraph 7 of the contract stipulated that an agent would be awarded a prize if they sold a ticket winning a major prize, provided they purchased at least five (5) booklets of tickets before the closing date of sales for each draw.
  2. Purchase of Tickets:

    • On February 27, 1947, plaintiff purchased two (2) booklets of tickets for the April 27, 1947, draw.
    • On March 13, 1947, she purchased two (2) additional booklets, totaling four (4) booklets.
    • Around March 31, 1947, plaintiff attempted to purchase a fifth booklet but was informed by PCSO field inspectors and the office that all booklets had been sold out.
  3. Winning Ticket:

    • One of the tickets purchased by the plaintiff won the second prize of P50,000 in the April 27, 1947, draw.
    • Under the contract, the seller of the winning ticket was entitled to a prize of P3,000.
  4. Demand and Refusal:

    • Plaintiff demanded the P3,000 prize, but PCSO refused, citing her failure to purchase the required five (5) booklets.
  5. Legal Action:

    • Plaintiff filed a case in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover the P3,000 prize.
    • The court dismissed the complaint, prompting the plaintiff to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the P3,000 prize despite purchasing only four (4) booklets instead of the required five (5).
  2. Whether the defendant (PCSO) was obligated to ensure the availability of tickets for the plaintiff to meet the five-booklet requirement.
  3. Whether the plaintiff’s efforts to purchase the fifth booklet constituted substantial compliance with the contract.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.