Del Mar Mar v. PAG COR
G.R. No. 138298 / November 29, 2000 NATURE PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS
Two consolidated petitions concerning the franchise granted to PAGCOR Raoul B. Del Mar Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), Belle Jai-Alai Corporation (BELLE), Filipinas Gaming Entertainment Totalizator Corporation (FILGAME)
S UMMA R Y .
PAGCOR requested legal advice from the Secretary of Justice if it’s authorized under its charter to operate jai-alai games (a form of sport). The Secretary of Justice said that PAGCOR has the authority; h ence PAGCOR has the power under its charter to operate. Petitioner del Mar filed a petition for prohibition preventing PAGCOR from managing jai-alai jai-alai since its illegal and devoid of any basis either from the Constitution or PAGCOR’s own Charter. However, PAGCOR still entered in an agreement with BELLE and FILGAME, hence, del Mar filed a Petition for Certiorari questioning the validity of the agreement. Members of the House of Representative also filed a petition stating that operation of PAGCOR of jai-alai is illegal because it is not included in its scope. Respondents then questioned the locus standi or legal standing of petitioners filing as taxpayers and members of the House of representatives. As stated by the Court, they have legal standing to the case since it affects public interest (involves taxes) and affects the powers of the legislative. D O C T R I N E . Locus Standi or or Legal Standing to file a petition as taxpayers and member of the House of Representatives FACTS.
PAGCOR requested for legal advice from the Secretary of Justice as to whether or not it is authorized by its Charter to operate and manage jai-alai frontons in the country in relation to Section 1 and 10 of P.D. No. 1869. The Secretary of Justice opined that the authority of PAGCOR to operate and maintain games of chance or gambling extends to jai-alai which is a form of sport or game played for bets and that the Charter of PAGCOR amounts to a legislative franchise for the purpose. On May 6, 1999, petitioner del Mar filed a Petition for Prohibition to prevent PAGCOR from managing and/or operating the jai-alai or Basque pelota games on the ground that the act is patently illegal and devoid of any basis either from the Constitution or PAGCOR’s own Charter. On June 17, 1999 however, PAGCOR entered into an agreement with BELLE and FILGAME wherein the latter parties would provide all the required facilities and requirements for the establishment and operation of jai-alai. On August 10, 1999, del Mar then filed a Supplemental Petition for Certiorari questioning questioning the validity validity of the agreement stating that PAGCOR is without jurisdiction, authority, legislative franchise, or authority to enter into such agreement for the operation and establishment of jai-alai games. A little earlier (July 1, 1999), Federico S. Sandoval II and Michael T. Defensor filed a Petition for Injunction. A Petition in Intervention was filed by Juan Miguel Zubiri alleging that the operation by PAGCOR of jai-alai is illegal because it is not included in PAGCOR’s scope. Petitoners del Mar, Sandoval, Defensor, and intervenor Zubiri are suing as taxpayers and in their capacity as the members of the House of Representatives. Respondent questions the locus standi or or the standing of the petitioners to file the petition at bar as taxpayers and as legislators because the operation of jai-alai does not involve the disbursement of public funds.
I S S U E S & R A T IO IO .
1. WON petitioners have a locus standi or legal standing to file the petition – YES. As stated by the Court, Respondent’s stance is without an “oven ready” legal support. A party suing as taxpayer must specifically prove that he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation. In essence, taxpayers are allowed to sue where there is a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds, or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose, or where petitioners seek to restrain respondent from wasting public funds through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. The record shown under their agreement is barren of evidence that the operation and management of jai-alai by the PAGCOR involves expenditure of public money. The Court also holds that as members of the House of Representatives, petitioners have legal standing to file the petition at bar. The operation of jai-alai jai-alai constitutes an infringement by PAGCOR of the legislature’s exclusive power to grant franchise. Hence, powers of Congress are being impared, so as the powers of each of its members. D E C I S I O N .
Petitioners have legal standing to file the petition
NOTES.
The states issue is only a “procedural issue” questioning when can taxpayers file a suit. The substantive issue concerns whether PAGCOR’s legislative franchise includes the right to manage and operate jaialai. It was ruled that PAGCOR DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to operate jai-alai because: It was not stated under its scope. In accordance with its historical creation, there is a separate Executive Order which controls the operating of Jai Alai (controlled by the Rom ualdezes) in Manila. PACGOR’s f ranchise was never given a franchise to operate j aialai. Tax treatment between jai-alai operations and gambling casinos are distinct from each other. PAGCOR is engaged in the business affected with public interest.
