Case Digest (G.R. No. 257849)
Facts:
Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office v. Antonio F. Mendoza, G.R. No. 257849, March 13, 2023, Supreme Court Second Division, Lopez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) is the government agency conducting lotto games; respondent Antonio F. Mendoza is a bettor who sued for specific performance to compel PCSO to pay the Lotto 6/42 jackpot of PHP 12,391,600.00. Mendoza alleged he placed three "lucky pick" bets on October 2, 2014; one combination matched the winning numbers, but his physical ticket was partly blackened after his granddaughter crumpled it and his daughter ironed it to straighten it out. The remaining visible portions included the first two digits of each of the three bet lines, the outlet identifier, the draw date and partial purchase time.
Mendoza presented the damaged ticket to PCSO on October 5, 2014, filed an affidavit October 7, and underwent publicity and hearings before the House Committee on Games. PCSO initially said it would not close Mendoza’s case but later, by letter dated October 20, 2014, refused payment because the ticket could not be validated. PCSO’s board adopted a "no ticket, no payment" policy on December 10, 2014. Administrative and investigative actions included polygraph tests by the NBI and certifications from PCSO units that, in their database, the sole winning six-number combination for the October 2, 2014 draw corresponded to one of Mendoza’s three bets and that only one three-bet transaction at the outlet matched his account.
Mendoza filed a complaint for specific performance in 2015 (seeking the jackpot, damages, attorney’s fees and costs). PCSO answered, asserting Mendoza failed to attach the original winning ticket and that the ticket and PCSO Amended Games Rules and Regulations (PCSO Rules), including printed warnings on the ticket and Article VII(4)(c) requiring presentation and surrender of the winning ticket, barred payment. The trial court (Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Balayan, Batangas) conducted preliminary hearings on PCSO’s special affirmative defenses, received documentary and testimonial evidence, and on March 29, 2019 rendered judgment in Mendoza’s favor ordering payment of the jackpot plus moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. PCSO’s motion for reconsideration was denied July 26, 2019.
PCSO appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated October 28, 2020, affirmed the RTC’s finding that Mendoza proved by preponderance of evidence that he selected the winning six-number combination and was entitled to the jac...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are the provisions in the PCSO Amended Games Rules and Regulations for the Lotto 6/42 susceptible to judicial interpretation?
- Did Antonio F. Mendoza sufficiently prove, by preponderance of evidence, that he is entitled to the PHP 12,391,600.00 6/42 jackpot prize despite his par...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)