Case Digest (G.R. No. 163553)
Facts:
Yun Kwan Byung, G.R. No. 163553, December 11, 2009, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Yun Kwan Byung (petitioner) sued the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) for redemption of gambling chips allegedly won at the Casino Filipino Silahis; the case reached the Court by a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari from the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the trial court.
PAGCOR, a government-owned and controlled corporation, operates casinos under Presidential Decree No. 1869 (PD 1869). PAGCOR had a Foreign Highroller Marketing Program under which it entered a 25 April 1996 junket or "lease" agreement with Korean-based ABS Corporation to bring foreign players into a designated dollar pit at Casino Filipino. Under the Junket Agreement PAGCOR would supply separate junket chips, ABS would distribute chips to its players, collect them and account to the casino treasury, and ABS would assume responsibility for paying winners among its foreign players; PAGCOR would receive 12.5% of ABS' gross winnings or US$1.5M, whichever was higher, over six months.
Petitioner, a Korean national, claimed he visited Manila several times in late 1996–early 1997 and accumulated gambling chips worth US$2.1 million, presenting gambling chips valued at US$1.1 million as evidence; PAGCOR allegedly refused to redeem them. PAGCOR maintained petitioner was a junket player of ABS who used ABS’s designated chips in the leased dollar pit, and that notices (in English and Korean) warned that those gaming rooms were exclusively operated by ABS and that ABS alone was accountable for the chips wagered there.
Petitioner filed suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila for redemption of chips; PAGCOR counterclaimed. The RTC (Branch 13) dismissed petitioner’s complaint and counterclaim on 6 May 1999, finding the Junket Agreement void as an unlawful sharing of PAGCOR’s franchise under PD 1869, that petitioner had notice of the special rules and chips, and that equitable relief was unwarranted. The Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 65699 affirmed on 27 May 2003, rejecting petitioner’s contentions that he was not an ABS ju...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that PAGCOR is not liable to petitioner, disregarding the doctrine of implied agency or agency by estoppel?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in using the intent of the contracting parties as the test for creation of agency where petitioner is a third party claiming liability of a presumed principal?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in failing to consider that PAGCOR ratified, or at l...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)