G.R. No. 138298 & G.R. No. 138982; August 24, 2001
RAOUL B. DEL MAR, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, BELLE JAI-ALAI CORPORATION, FILIPINAS GAMING ENTERTAINMENT TOTALIZATOR CORPORATION, respondents.

FEDERICO S. SANDOVAL II and MICHAEL T. DEFENSOR, petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, respondent. JUAN MIGUEL ZUBIRI, intervenor.

FACTS

The Supreme Court, in a Decision dated November 29, 2000, granted the petitions and enjoined the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), Belle Jai-Alai Corporation (BELLE), and Filipinas Gaming Entertainment Totalizator Corporation (FILGAME) from operating, maintaining, or managing jai-alai games and from enforcing their June 17, 1999 Agreement for that purpose. The ponencia held that PAGCOR lacked a franchise to operate jai-alai. A motion for reconsideration was filed. In a Resolution dated June 19, 2001, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of the required number of votes, with seven justices voting to grant it. Respondents subsequently sought a clarification of this resolution.

ISSUE

The primary issues for clarification were:
1. Whether PAGCOR has a valid franchise to conduct jai-alai games.
2. Whether PAGCOR can operate, maintain, or manage jai-alai games in association with BELLE and FILGAME under their agreement.

RULING

The Court, upon clarification of the voting on the motion for reconsideration, resolved as follows:
1. On PAGCOR’s Franchise: Ten (10) members of the Court voted in the affirmative, while five (5) voted in the negative. Therefore, PAGCOR has a valid franchise to operate, maintain, and/or manage the game of jai-alai.
2. On Operation in Association with BELLE and FILGAME: Only seven (7) members voted in the affirmative that PAGCOR could operate in association with BELLE and FILGAME under their agreement. Eight (8) members voted in the negative—five on the ground that PAGCOR had no franchise, and three on the ground that PAGCOR could operate only by itself and not in association with any other entity. Therefore, PAGCOR cannot operate, maintain, or manage jai-alai games in association with BELLE and/or FILGAME.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The Court PARTIALLY GRANTED the motions for clarification, declaring that PAGCOR has a valid franchise to operate jai-alai only by itself (not in association with any other entity). It DENIED the motions insofar as they sought reconsideration of the November 29, 2000 Decision, thereby maintaining the injunction against the continued operation of jai-alai by PAGCOR in association with BELLE and/or FILGAME and declaring their June 17, 1999 Agreement without force and effect.