Del Mar v PAGCOR (no jai-alai franchise): Allegations, Court Orders and Status

What this case is about

Del Mar v PAGCOR is a constitutional case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, En Banc, under G.R. Nos. 138298 and 138982. It is one of the Licensing and Administrative Court Cases on how far a state gaming agency may stretch its franchise.

The petitions were filed in May 1999 (G.R. No. 138298, with a supplemental petition in August 1999) and July 1999 (G.R. No. 138982).

The petitioners were Raoul B. del Mar and two members of the House of Representatives, Federico S. Sandoval II and Michael T. Defensor, and Juan Miguel Zubiri intervened. They challenged PAGCOR's revival of jai-alai with Belle Jai-Alai Corporation and Filipinas Gaming Entertainment Totalizator Corporation under a June 1999 agreement.

The question was whether PAGCOR's franchise under PD 1869 includes jai-alai and whether PAGCOR may share operations with private partners.

Who is covered

The ruling binds PAGCOR, Belle Jai-Alai and Filgame. It also sets the limit of PAGCOR's franchise for every later dispute about what PAGCOR may operate or share.

It is not a class action and no players or ticket buyers are parties. PAGCOR's other cases are collected under PAGCOR Lawsuits.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists in this case. The record shows no fund, no damages and no claim deadline. The petitioners asked for a ruling on the scope of PAGCOR's franchise and the validity of the agreement, and the Court granted that relief as an injunction.

What the court decided

On 29 November 2000, in a decision written by Justice Puno, the Court granted the petitions and enjoined the jai-alai operation and the agreement. It held that PD 1869 authorizes gambling casinos only, and that franchises touching public morals are strictly construed.

The matter is a decided judgment. As of 14 November 2026 the record shows no further step.

Why it matters

Together with Jaworski v PAGCOR (2004), Del Mar is the leading authority that PAGCOR cannot stretch or share its franchise. PAGCOR may operate and license gambling casinos but not jai-alai, and it may not delegate its franchise to private internet-gaming operators.

Later rulings added limits from the other side: local governments cannot ban PAGCOR casinos (Magtajas, 1994), and only zones with express statutory gaming powers may license games of chance (PAGCOR v PEJI, 2009). For more cases of this kind, see the Licensing and Administrative Court Cases hub.

Questions people ask

Can PAGCOR run jai-alai?

No. The Supreme Court held on 29 November 2000 that PD 1869 authorizes gambling casinos only. It enjoined the jai-alai operation and the agreement with Belle Jai-Alai and Filgame.

Who challenged the jai-alai agreement?

Raoul B. del Mar and two members of the House of Representatives, Federico S. Sandoval II and Michael T. Defensor, were the petitioners. Juan Miguel Zubiri intervened. PAGCOR, Belle Jai-Alai Corporation and Filgame were the respondents.

Is there any compensation connected to this case?

No. The record shows no fund, damages or claim process. The Court granted an injunction against the jai-alai operation and the agreement.

Related cases

• Jaworski v. PAGCOR and Sports and Games Entertainment Corporation, G.R. No. 144463: PAGCOR may not delegate its franchise to private internet-gaming operators, status judgment.
• PAGCOR v. Philippine Gaming Jurisdiction Inc. and Zamboanga City Special Economic Zone Authority, G.R. No. 177333: which zones may license games of chance, status judgment.