THE Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) has been ordered to pay a man who won in a lotto draw, despite his ticket having been partially damaged by a flat iron.
In a 17-page decision handed down by the SC Second Division, it denied the PCSO’s request for a review, which sought to overturn the rulings made by the Court of Appeals (CA). These CA decisions upheld the verdict of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Balayan, Batangas.
According to the RTC’s judgment, the PCSO has been mandated to pay the sum of P12,391,600.00 to the petitioner, Antonio F. Mendoza, as payment for his Lotto 6/42 jackpot win.
The chain of events leading to this legal saga began on October 2, 2014, when Mr. Mendoza placed three bets for the Lotto 6/42 draw using a “lucky pick” method at a lotto outlet in Batangas.
The subsequent morning brought him the news that one of his “lucky pick” number combinations had triumphed. Regrettably, his granddaughter inadvertently crumpled the winning ticket, prompting his daughter to flatten it with a flat iron, protected by a cloth.
This process resulted in substantial damage to the ticket, with only a few details remaining discernible: the first two digits of the three bet combinations, the purchase location, the draw date, the purchase date, and partially, the time of purchase.
Mr. Mendoza presented this partially blackened ticket to the PCSO in Mandaluyong City on October 5, 2014, and was instructed to provide a handwritten account of the incident.
He complied and returned to the PCSO on October 7 to submit his affidavit to the Legal Department. However, on October 20, 2014, the PCSO notified him that his prize could not be awarded due to the damaged ticket’s inability to be validated.
In the interim, Mr. Mendoza’s story came to the attention of the House of Representatives Committee on Games and Amusements, which recommended awarding him the prize based on the circumstances and evidence confirming his ownership of the winning ticket.
Subsequently, Mr. Mendoza demanded the Lotto 6/42 prize from the PCSO, but his request was ignored. This prompted him to file a complaint before the RTC, seeking specific performance against the PCSO.
The RTC ruled in favor of Mr. Mendoza, establishing that he was the exclusive winner of the lotto draw. The RTC justified the use of secondary evidence due to the damage to Mr. Mendoza’s ticket.
Furthermore, it ordered the PCSO to cover attorney’s fees and moral damages, considering the emotional and physical toll on Mr. Mendoza during his protracted battle for the prize.
The CA upheld the RTC’s findings, affirming that Mr. Mendoza had conclusively demonstrated that he was the sole individual to select the winning six-number combination in the October 2, 2014, Lotto 6/42 draw.
In its decision favoring Mr. Mendoza, the SC contended that the PCSO Amended Games and Rules and Regulations for the Lotto 6/42 had ambiguous provisions, open to two interpretations.
The PCSO Rules state that tickets with all six selected numbers corresponding to the official winning numbers shall be classified as Category 1 prizes.
While the PCSO emphasized the need for complete physical tickets for prize money disbursement, Mr. Mendoza and the House Committee on Games viewed the selection of the winning number combination as the primary condition precedent.
The SC ruled that these were two reasonable interpretations, leading to ambiguity in the terms for prize money payment, with the court entrusted to resolve this ambiguity.
It also reviewed the nature of lotto as a game of chance authorized under Republic Act No. 1169, highlighting that the PCSO Rules did not reference a “winning ticket” but rather defined a ticket as one produced by a terminal confirming the customer’s selection.
In conclusion, the SC stressed that the circumstances surrounding Mr. Mendoza’s betting on the eventual winning numbers were clearly substantiated.
Notably, both the RTC and the CA classified the evidence presented by Mr. Mendoza as secondary evidence, justifiably so, as it was a suitable recourse when the original document is unavailable, as per the Best Evidence Rule in the Rules of Court.
The high court further asserted that the testimonial evidence presented by Mr. Mendoza and his relatives, corroborated by PCSO records, regarding his winning lotto bet and matching numbers, was admissible and deserving of consideration. Abogado.com.ph
