Case Summary (G.R. No. 257849)
Antecedents
On October 2, 2014, Mendoza placed three "lucky pick" bets for the Lotto 6/42 at a lotto outlet in Brgy. Dacanlao, Calaca, Batangas. After learning that one of his combinations was a winning ticket, a series of unfortunate events led to the ticket being partially damaged. Despite attempts to restore the ticket, only fragments remained visible. Mendoza presented this damaged ticket to the PCSO shortly after, leading to a protracted negotiation and legal dispute over the validity of his claim.
Initial Legal Proceedings
Mendoza filed a Complaint for specific performance on September 30, 2015, asserting his claim despite the damaged ticket. He argued that no other claims were submitted for the winnings and contended that the PCSO's "no ticket, no payment" policy lacked a solid legal basis. Mendoza sought the jackpot amount, alongside moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and costs.
PCSO’s Defense and Counterclaims
The PCSO denied Mendoza’s claim, arguing that the absence of the original ticket invalidated his case. They cited rules stating that winning tickets must be presented in their complete and undamaged state. Furthermore, the PCSO emphasized its adherence to internal regulations for preventing fraudulent claims, which they believed Mendoza's case potentially undermined.
Trial Court Decision
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) sided with Mendoza on March 29, 2019, ruling that the evidence presented sufficiently established his entitlement to the jackpot prize despite the condition of the ticket. The RTC ruled that the damage to Mendoza's ticket justified reliance on secondary evidence, allowing him to substantiate his claims and awarded him not only the jackpot but also moral damages and attorney’s fees.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The PCSO appealed the RTC's decision, yet the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed it but modified the aspects regarding the moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. The CA recognized that Mendoza had proven, by preponderance of evidence, that he was the only one to claim the winning combination.
Issues for Resolution
The primary issues presented were whether the provisions in the PCSO Rules were interpretative and whether Mendoza significantly demonstrated ownership of the winning ticket despite its condition.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court upheld the CA ruling affirming Mendoza's entitlement to the jackpot prize. It stressed that the ambiguity in the PCSO Rules allowed for judicial interpretation. The Court reiterated that the pertinent criteria for winning consisted in selecting the correct combination of numbers, distinct from the stipulations regarding the ticket’s physical condition.
Interpretation of the PCSO Rules
The Court noted that the PCSO Rules were ambivalent, accommodating both the presentation of a winning ticket and the selection of winning numbers as conditions for entitlement to t
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 257849)
Case Background and Facts
- Antonio F. Mendoza filed a Complaint for specific performance on September 30, 2015, claiming that his "lucky pick" number combinations placed on October 2, 2014, won the Lotto 6/42 jackpot prize.
- The three sets of numbers he bet on were partially visible on a damaged ticket after his granddaughter crumpled it and his daughter ironed it, causing blackening and loss of most digits.
- Mendoza presented the partially blackened ticket to the PCSO, submitted affidavits, and testified before various hearings including the House Committee on Games and Amusements.
- The PCSO initially indicated willingness to pay pending COA approval, but later refused payment citing their "no ticket, no payment" policy due to the damaged ticket.
- The House Committee recommended awarding the prize to Mendoza considering the evidence but criticized the sweepstakes office for causing undue injury.
- Mendoza filed a legal claim for the jackpot amounting to PHP 12,391,600.00 plus damages and fees.
- The PCSO defended itself by highlighting the lack of the original intact ticket and adherence to the printed rules on the ticket and PCSO Amended Games Rules and Regulations stating no payment without presentation and surrender of the winning ticket.
Legal Issues
- Whether the PCSO Rules and Regulations for Lotto 6/42 are ambiguous and subject to judicial interpretation.
- Whether Mendoza sufficiently proved entitlement to the jackpot prize despite the damaged ticket.
Lower Courts’ Findings
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Mendoza, ordering PCSO to pay the jackpot plus damages and attorney’s fees.
- The RTC justified the use of secondary evidence due to the damaged ticket and acknowledged Mendoza’s emotional and physical suffering.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) partially affirmed the RTC ruling, confirming Mendoza’s entitlement to the prize but deleting awards for damages and attorney's fees.
- The CA emphasized that winning the Lotto 6/42 prize is based on the selection of the winning number combination, not merely presentation of the ticket.
PCSO’s Arguments on Appeal to the Supreme Court
- The PCSO asserted Mendoza failed to me