Scribd
Upload
25 views2 pages

Source of Obligation 1

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mendoza, affirming that his partially damaged lottery ticket still entitled him to the jackpot prize from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO). The court found that Mendoza provided substantial evidence proving he was the exclusive winner, despite the ticket's damage. Consequently, the PCSO was obligated to deliver the prize, as Mendoza had fulfilled the conditions of the contract by selecting the winning numbers.

Uploaded by

Rod Albert Canete
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
25 views2 pages

Source of Obligation 1

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mendoza, affirming that his partially damaged lottery ticket still entitled him to the jackpot prize from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO). The court found that Mendoza provided substantial evidence proving he was the exclusive winner, despite the ticket's damage. Consequently, the PCSO was obligated to deliver the prize, as Mendoza had fulfilled the conditions of the contract by selecting the winning numbers.

Uploaded by

Rod Albert Canete
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No. 257849 - Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office v.

Mendoza (March
13, 2023)

Facts:
On October 2, 2014. Mendoza claims that he purchased three lottery tickets with
"lucky pick" number combinations from a lotto outlet in Batangas, one of which was
the winning combination. However, his winning ticket was partially damaged when
his granddaughter crumpled it and his daughter attempted to straighten it out by
ironing it, resulting in only partial visibility of the numbers and other details.

Mendoza presented his partially damaged ticket to the sweepstakes office for
validation, but they refused to award him the prize, citing the damage to the ticket.
Despite Mendoza's efforts, including submitting a handwritten account of what
happened and undergoing polygraph tests, the sweepstakes office maintained its
refusal to pay the prize.

Undeterred Mendoza filed a Complaint for specific performance to which the trial
court rendered a Decision in favor of Mendoza. The court found that Mendoza
presented substantial evidence that he was the exclusive winner of the jackpot prize,
despite the damage to his ticket. The court ordered the sweepstakes office to pay
Mendoza the jackpot prize, as well as moral damages, exemplary damages, and
attorney's fees. On Appeal the CA affirmed the trial court’s decision with
modifications for the award on damages and attorney’s fees.

Issue:
Whether or not the partially damaged winning lottery ticket of Mendoza gave rise to
an obligation on the part of Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office to deliver the pot
prize.

Ruling:

Yes, the partially damaged winning lottery ticket of Mendoza gave rise to an
obligation on the part of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) to deliver
the jackpot prize. According to the Article 1157 of the Civil Code, an obligation arises
from law, contracts, quasi-contracts, acts or omissions punished by law, and
quasi-delicts.

In this case, the obligation stemmed from the contract formed between Mendoza and
the PCSO through the lottery game. When Mendoza purchased the lottery ticket and
selected his numbers, he accepted the offer made by the PCSO to participate in the
game with the chance of winning the jackpot prize. The terms and conditions of the
game constituted the offer, and Mendoza's acceptance of the offer by purchasing the
ticket created a binding contract between him and the PCSO.
While the ticket was partially damaged, Mendoza was able to provide substantial
evidence, including testimonies and certifications, to prove that he had indeed
selected the winning numbers for the Lotto 6/42 draw on October 2, 2014. Despite
the damage to the ticket, Mendoza fulfilled the conditions of the offer by selecting the
winning number combination.

Therefore, PCSO was obligated to deliver the jackpot prize to Mendoza. The
damage to the ticket did not negate Mendoza's entitlement to the prize, as he had
fulfilled his part of the contract by selecting the winning numbers. As such, the PCSO
was legally bound to honor its contractual obligation to pay the jackpot prize to
Mendoza.

You might also like