G.R. No. 223845 - Guiao vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, et al.

Joseller M. Guiao (petitioner), a former member of the House of Representatives and Vice Chairperson of the House Committee on Youth and Sports Development, filed a Petition for Mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Respondents are the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), and the Office of the President.

The petition sought to compel respondents to remit funds to the Philippine Sports Commission (PSC) pursuant to Section 26 of Republic Act No. 6847 (Philippine Sports Commission Act).
Petitioner alleged non-compliance by PAGCOR and PCSO in their duty to remit mandated funding for the National Sports Development Fund.

Provides funding sources: 30% of charity fund of six sweepstakes/lottery draws per annum, taxes on horse races during special holidays, 5% of PAGCOR gross income, proceeds from sale of sports-related stamps, and 3% of taxes on imported athletic equipment.
These funds are to be automatically remitted directly to the PSC.

PAGCOR improperly remitted only 2.1375% of its gross income to PSC instead of the mandated 5%, allegedly based on memoranda approved by the Office of the President which allocated PAGCOR’s income shares differently.
PAGCOR deducted the 5% franchise tax, 50% national government share, and NAPOCOR subsidy prior to applying the 5% to PSC, reducing the actual remittance.
Petitioner claimed these actions constituted grave abuse of discretion and violated Section 26 of R.A. 6847.

PCSO has not remitted the full 30% representing the charity fund from six sweepstakes or lottery draws to PSC since 2006 except for sporadic donations.
PCSO argued that lotto draws were not contemplated under Section 26 and thus not accountable under the law.

PAGCOR and PCSO filed comments/oppositions asserting lack of petitioner’s legal standing, violation of hierarchy of courts doctrine, and that their remittances complied in good faith with the law.
The Office of the Solicitor General manifested to be excused for non-participation, stating representation by the Office of Government Corporate Counsel suffices.
Petitioner filed consolidated reply reiterating standing, urgency, and correctness of the petition.

Memoranda issued by PAGCOR and approved by the Office of the President reallocated income shares affecting PSC’s mandated share.
Petitioner alleged no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists.
Petitioner claimed the issue to be of public interest and constitutional significance.

Does petitioner Joseller M. Guiao have legal standing to file the Petition for Mandamus?
Was the Petition for Mandamus filed in violation of the doctrine on hierarchy of courts and exhaustion of administrative remedies?

Did PAGCOR and PCSO violate Section 26 of Republic Act No. 6847 in their remittances to the Philippine Sports Commission?