G.R. No. 223845, May 28, 2024
Josefeller M. Guiao, Petitioner, v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office, and the Office of the President, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Joseller M. Guiao, then a member of the House of Representatives and Vice Chairperson of the House Committee on Youth and Sports Development, filed a Petition for Mandamus to compel respondents to remit funds to the Philippine Sports Commission (PSC) as mandated by Section 26 of Republic Act No. 6847 (The Philippine Sports Commission Act). The law provides that the National Sports Development Fund shall be sourced from, among others, “five percent (5%) of the gross income of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation” and “thirty percent (30%) representing the charity fund of the proceeds of six (6) sweepstakes of lottery draws per annum” from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO).
Guiao alleged that PAGCOR failed to remit the full 5% of its gross income. He cited internal memoranda from 1993 and 1995, approved by the President, which effectively reduced PSC’s share from PAGCOR’s earnings to 2.1375% by computing it after deducting franchise tax and the national government’s share. Guiao also alleged that PCSO, since 2006, had not been remitting the mandated 30% from the charity fund of six sweepstakes/lottery draws per annum, except for some years where it made “donations.”
PAGCOR argued that the PSC’s 5% share is correctly based on its gross income after deducting the 5% franchise tax and the 50% share of the national government. PCSO argued that Guiao lacked legal standing, failed to observe the hierarchy of courts and exhaustion of administrative remedies, and that its obligations under the law pertain only to sweepstakes draws, not other lottery games.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of mandamus should be issued to compel the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office, and the Office of the President to remit to the Philippine Sports Commission the funds as specified under Section 26 of Republic Act No. 6847.

RULING

No, the petition for mandamus is denied. For the writ of mandamus to issue, the petitioner must show a clear legal right to the performance of a ministerial duty by the respondent. The Court found that Guiao failed to establish a clear legal right to the relief sought.
Regarding PAGCOR, the Court held that the petitioner did not sufficiently prove that PAGCOR’s current method of computing the PSC’s 5% share (based on gross income after certain deductions) is illegal. The Court noted that the computation involves the interpretation of PAGCOR’s charter (Presidential Decree No. 1869) and its interaction with R.A. No. 6847, which entails the exercise of judgment and discretion, not a purely ministerial duty enforceable by mandamus. Furthermore, the Court found that the internal memoranda from 1993 and 1995, which Guiao relied upon, were not shown to have the force and effect of law.
Regarding PCSO, the Court found that the petitioner failed to substantiate the claim of non-remittance with concrete evidence. The petition did not specify the amounts allegedly not remitted or provide official data from PCSO. The mere allegation of non-compliance, without proof, is insufficient to grant mandamus. The Court also noted that the obligation pertains specifically to the “charity fund of the proceeds of six (6) sweepstakes of lottery draws per annum,” implying a need for factual determination of what constitutes the applicable base amount.
The Court also found that Guiao, as a legislator and sports advocate, did not possess the requisite personal and substantial interest to file the petition. His interest was deemed too general and shared by the public. The Court further held that the proper party to assert the right to the funds is the PSC itself, which has a clear legal personality and direct interest in the matter. The petition, therefore, failed to meet the stringent requirements for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of mandamus.