G.R. No.

138298
November 29, 2000
RAOUL B. DEL MAR, petitioner,
vs.
PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, BELLE JAI-ALAI CORPORATION,
FILIPINAS GAMING ENTERTAINMENT TOTALIZATOR CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) requested for legal advice from
the Secretary of Justice as to whether it is authorized by its Charter to operate and manage jai-alai
frontons in the country. The Secretary of Justice interpreted that the Charter gives PAGCOR the
authority to operate and maintain jai-alai. Thus, PAGCOR started the operation of jai-alai frontons.
Subsequently, PAGCOR entered into an agreement with Belle Jai Alai Corporation (BELLE) and
Filipinas Gaming Entertainment Totalizator Corporation (FILGAME) wherein it was agreed that BELLE
will make available to PAGCOR the required infrastructure facilities including the main fronton, as well
as provide the needed funding for jai-alai operations with no financial outlay from PAGCOR, while
PAGCOR handles the actual management and operation of jai-alai.

Petitioner Raoul B. del Mar filed a Petition for Prohibition to prevent respondent PAGCOR
from managing and/or operating the jai-alai games, by itself or in agreement with Belle Corporation,
on the ground that the controverted act is patently illegal and devoid of any basis either from the
Constitution or PAGCOR’s own Charter and questioning the validity of said Agreement on the ground
that PAGCOR is without jurisdiction, legislative franchise, authority or power to enter into such
Agreement for the opening, establishment, operation, control and management of jai-alai games.

The respondents asserted Sec. 10 of PD No. 1869 which included the line “the rights,
privileges and authority to operate and maintain gambling casinos, clubs, and other recreation or
amusement places, sports, gaming pools, i.e. basketball, football, lotteries, etc”.They claimed that jai-
alai franchises are impliedly included because it is a sport or game played for bets. Thus, the operation
of jai-alai is well within PAGCOR’s authority to operate and maintain.

ISSUE

Whether or not the franchise granted to the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation
(PAGCOR) includes the right to manage and operate jai-alai.

HELD

The Supreme Court granted the Petition for Prohibition. A thorough examination of the
legislative history of the development of PAGCOR will show that it was never given legislative
franchise to operate jai-alai.

President Marcos created PAGCOR through PD No. 1067-A. A year and a half before the
latter’s creation, President Marcos gave Philippine Jai-Alai and Amusement Corporation, a company
owned by the Romualdezes, a 25-year right to operate jai-alai in Manila through PD No. 810 and
revoked the authority of local government units to issue jai-alai franchises. There was no intention, in
Marcos’ part, to give PAGCOR a franchise to operate jai-alai because he wanted his in-laws to have
the sole authority in operating jai-alai frontons. Claiming that the franchise given to PAGCOR extends
to the operation of jai-alai will create competition with the Romualdezes’ franchise. Thus, the Supreme
Court ruled that the Charter of PAGCOR does not give it any franchise to operate and manage jai-
alai.