G.R. No. 138298 & 138982; June 19, 2001
RAOUL B. DEL MAR, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, ET. AL., respondent. / FEDERICO SANDOVAL II, petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, respondent, JUAN MIGUEL ZUBIRI, intervenor.

FACTS

Motions for reconsideration were filed by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) and private respondents Belle Jai-Alai Corporation (BELLE) and Filipinas Gaming Entertainment Totalizator Corporation (FILGAME), seeking to reverse the Court’s Decision dated November 29, 2000, which enjoined them from managing, maintaining, and operating jai-alai games and from enforcing their agreement for that purpose. Only seven justices voted to grant the motions. For lack of the required number of votes, the motions for reconsideration were denied. PAGCOR argued that its franchise under P.D. 1869 was not limited to gambling casinos and included games like jai-alai, that the decree amended prior laws, that its wisdom could not be inquired into by courts, that jai-alai in the Philippine context is a gambling activity, that it would manage the games under a joint venture, and that differing tax treatments were not crucial. BELLE and FILGAME argued that limiting PAGCOR’s franchise to casinos would render parts of its charter meaningless and defeat its intent to centralize games of chance. Petitioners and an intervenor opposed the motions.

ISSUE

Whether P.D. 1869 granted PAGCOR a legislative franchise to operate jai-alai games.

RULING

The motions for reconsideration were denied. The Court, through the opinions incorporated into the resolution, reiterated that P.D. 1869 did not grant PAGCOR a franchise to operate jai-alai. The substantive points from the original decision, which the respondents failed to refute, were: (1) A franchise is a special privilege with terms specifically prescribed, especially for gambling which is a menace to morality. (2) The history of P.D. 1869 shows its predecessor, P.D. 1067-B, was a franchise for gambling casinos alone, and Section 10 of P.D. 1869 did not expand this to include jai-alai. (3) PAGCOR was created to centralize games of chance not already authorized by existing franchises; since a jai-alai franchise (Philippine Jai-alai and Amusement Corporation) already existed, Congress could not have intended to grant another. (4) Laws granting jai-alai franchises contain standard terms and conditions (e.g., licensing of pelotaris, use of totalizators) absent from P.D. 1869, which contains provisions pertinent only to casinos. (5) A legislative franchise for gambling must be strictly construed, and any doubt must be resolved to limit the powers claimed. (6) The plain meaning rule of statutory construction does not apply because P.D. 1869 is ambiguous and admits of different interpretations.