G.R. No. 157171 - Garcia vs. Court of Appeals

On September 30, 2015, Antonio F. Mendoza filed a Complaint for specific performance against the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), seeking payment of the PHP 12,391,600.00 jackpot prize for the October 2, 2014 Lotto 6/42 draw.
Mendoza alleged he placed three "lucky pick" bets at a lotto outlet in Brgy. Dacanlao, Calaca, Batangas, with specific number combinations.
The next day, Mendoza learned he had a winning combination, but his granddaughter crumpled the ticket; his daughter ironed it, causing blackening and damage.
The damaged ticket showed only partial information: the first two digits of each bet, the draw date, purchase date, and outlet details.
Mendoza presented the damaged ticket to PCSO; after submitting affidavits and a handwritten account, PCSO initially held open the case but later refused payment citing ticket damage causing invalidation.

Mendoza aired the issue at House Committee on Games hearings; PCSO representatives initially indicated willingness to pay subject to Commission on Audit (COA) approval.
COA stated it would not disallow payment if authorized by PCSO Board.
Mendoza and family underwent polygraph tests by NBI; PCSO Board later declared no payment per their "no ticket, no payment" policy.
The Committee on Games recommended payment to Mendoza and an Ombudsman investigation into possible wrongdoing by PCSO.

Mendoza demanded payment; after refusal, he filed the Complaint alleging bad faith and bias on PCSO's part.
PCSO filed an Answer asserting failure to state cause due to lack of valid ticket attached, and emphasizing the binding "no ticket, no payment" policy printed on the ticket and in PCSO rules.
Mendoza presented substantial proof including:

The partly burnt ticket.
PCSO certifications confirming the winning number combinations matched the partial ticket and transaction records from the lotto outlet.
Testimony and polygraph results supporting his claim.

PCSO moved to suspend pre-trial and raise affirmative defense on ticket validity.
After hearings and submission of position papers, RTC ruled in favor of Mendoza, awarding the jackpot prize plus moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
PCSO's motion for reconsideration was denied; PCSO appealed.

CA affirmed the RTC's finding that Mendoza was the exclusive winner and entitled to the jackpot prize.
The CA highlighted that the essence of winning the Lotto 6/42 prize is selecting the winning number combination.
However, the CA deleted the awards for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
PCSO's motion for reconsideration was denied by CA.

PCSO filed a petition arguing the CA erred in disregarding the PCSO rules requiring presentation of a complete ticket.
PCSO cited prior Supreme Court rulings in the "Number Fever" cases to argue conditions precedent were not met by Mendoza.
Mendoza filed comment reiterating that PCSO Rules were ambiguous and he proved by preponderance of evidence that he was the winning bettor.

Whether the provisions in the PCSO Rules and Regulations for Lotto 6/42 are susceptible to judicial interpretation.
Whether Antonio F. Mendoza sufficiently proved his entitlement to the jackpot prize despite his winning ticket being partially burned.