THIRD DIVISION

PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND G.R. No. 151030

GAMING CORPORATION,
Present:
Petitioner,
QUISUMBING, Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.

-versus-

RICHARD SYHONGPAN,
Respondent.

Promulgated:
August 30, 2006

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Assailed via Petition for Review on Certiorari is the Court of Appeals Decision [1] of
June 20, 2000 reversing the Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 981738 dated
July 2, 1998 and No. 990479 dated February 17, 1999 which ordered the dismissal from
the service of respondent, Richard Syhongpan (Syhongpan), for dishonesty, grave
misconduct, and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The factual backdrop of the case follows:
On October 8, 1997, petitioner Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation
(PAGCOR)s Casino Filipino-Heritage, Manila opened its expanded VIP Gaming Area.
[2]Syhongpan, the Branch Manager of Casino Filipino-Davao, attended the event during

which he played in the casino area with other officers of the casino and players until the
next day, October 9, 1997.
Generally, PAGCOR employees are prohibited from playing in the casino. On special
occasions, however, officers may be authorized by the Chairman of the Board of
Directors to play, provided that they play only at the small tables, limit their bets
to P5,000 per deal, and cease playing by 6:00 a.m. of the following day.[3]
The incident prompted the PAGCOR to instruct its Corporate Investigation Unit (CIU)
to conduct an investigation.
After Syhongpan and Carlos Gonzales (Gonzales), Casino Operations Manager (COM)
of Club Filipino-Heritage, were served with Memoranda of Charges[4] and given the
opportunity to, as they did, submit their written statements, [5] the CIU personally
interviewed the two.
The CIU later reported as follows:
We therefore believe that a partnership was formed last October 8th by BM
SYHONGPAN and COM GONZALES to win money at Pagcor gaming tables in
CF-Heritage. To evade the strict injunctions on table limits, time limit and playing
in the big tables applicable to playing officers, the partnership employed
CORAZON CASTILLO as its gunner [.] When the partnership needed additional
capital, it was COM GONZALES acting under the direction and control of BM
SYHONGPAN who approached various financiers, eventually incurring a total
indebtedness of P2.7 Million. When they could not borrow from the financiers anymore,
BM SYHONGPAN conceived a scheme utilizing: 1) the character and reputation of one
QUINTIN A. LLORENTE; 2) his [BM SYHONGPANs] position and influence as a
Branch Manager of Pagcor and, 3) the position and influence of COM GONZALES as a
COM of CF-Heritage to circumvent the existing approval procedure for personal checks
accommodations. This allowed the partnership to borrow a total of P7 Million from
the Heritage Treasury. Proof of this scheme can be seen in the fact that, after deducting
about P100,000 which was paid to MS. CASTILLO for her services as a gunner and the
owner of the PCs issued, the net profits of roughly P500,000 were divided 5050 between BM SYHONGPAN and COM GONZALES. Part of the elaborate scheme
to deceive the Treasury involved the usurpation of authority by COM GONZALES to
have them believe that the check accommodations were all cleared by the branch
SBM/BMO, when in fact they were not. Another part of the scheme involved the use of
MR. LLORENTE as an indorsee/guarantor to present himself as the purported applicant

for the accommodation. This was an act of fraud, since, as correctly observed by the
Treasury, the true applicant/owner of the checks was CORAZON CASTILLO and not
QUINTIN LLORENTE.[6] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Syhongpan, Gonzales and other personnel of the PAGCOR were thereafter summoned to
appear before the PAGCORs Adjudication Committee to explain further.[7]
Before the Adjudication Committee, it was established that Syhongpan played in the
company of Gonzales and a certain Brenda del Rio from around 10:30 p.m. of October 8,
1997 up to after 6:00 oclock in the morning the following day, October 9, 1997, and that
they were thereafter joined by Betty Lim (Betty) and Corazon Castillo (Corazon).[8]
Syhongpan admitted that on the instigation of Corazon and Betty, he formed a selfstyled corporation (or partnership) with an agreement to share profits and losses; that in
borrowing from the financiers and from the Casino Filipino-Heritage Treasury, the
partnership relied on the financial capacity of Betty, a part-owner of BMG Records; that
the partnership relied on his acumen and wizardry at the gaming tables; and that his
participation in the partnership was only ten percent (10%).[9]
Syhongpan likewise admitted calling the shots, telling Corazon where to bet, for he
believed that a player has better odds betting with the banker; [10] that Corazon, who was
the gunner for proxy betting, was betting amounts of up to P1.5 million;[11] that he was
able to borrow money from financiers amounting to P2.7 million, broken down as
follows:
QUINTIN LLORENTE 1,400,000
LITO MADLANGBAYAN 870,000
TEDDY TAYLAN 200,000
FELISA SY (ASA) 100,000
BOY OZAMIS 50,000
LOUIE (runner of FELISA SY) 80,000
TOTAL 2,700,000;[12]

that when he and Gonzales could not borrow from the financiers anymore, he inquired
from Gonzales if Quintin Llorente (Llorente), a more well-known player/financier, had

been extended check accommodation in the past and on answering in the affirmative, he
instructed Gonzales to borrow money from the Casino Filipino-Heritage Treasury
(Treasury) upon the representation that Llorente was applying for personal check (PC)
accommodation, although the checks issued were those of Corazon, a small-time
player;and that a total loan of P7 million pesos was thus obtained from the Treasury.[13]
Gonzales corroborated Syhongpans admissions, except the latters claim on the
percentage of sharing, Gonzales having asserted that of the P600,000 profits earned by
the partnership, Syhongpan received P250,000 (41.67%), he (Gonzales)
received P250,000 (41.67%), and Corazon received P100,000 (16.67%).[14]
Ultimately, Syhongpan raised before the Committee the defense of intoxication in that
he did not know what was going on.[15]
The Adjudication Committee, which noted, among other things, that Llorente was not
one of those players to whom PC accommodation was granted as a matter of course
since approval by the Senior Branch Manager or Branch Manager for Operations
(SBM/BMO) was still required,[16] concluded that Syhongpan violated the conditions
strictly regulating gambling by officers in PAGCOR casinos on special occasions by
committing the following acts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

conspiring with COM GONZALES and casino patrons to borrow and obtain chips
from the CF-Heritage Treasury.
playing beyond 6:00 of the immediately following day.
exceeding the betting limit of P5,000 per deal.
playing at the big tables
borrowing from players or financiers
engaging in proxy betting
excessively fraternizing with female casino patrons
drinking excessively while at the gaming area
abusing his authority in obtaining playing chips from Treasury personnel.[17]

The Committee thus recommended as follows:

1.
BM
RICHARD
S.
SYHONGPAN
of
CF-Davao
is
liable
for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the
service as the mastermind of the whole nefarious scheme, from the time of the
formation of the partnership until the division of its profits, with partners all acting
under his direction and control and acting personally as a principal by inducement
and by direct participation in the borrowing of sums from financiers. At the same
time, he is liable for circumventing casino regulations prohibiting officers from playing
beyond 6:00 of the following morning, rules on maximum bets and rules prohibiting
officers from playing at the big tables by employing CORAZON CASTILLO as his
gunner[.] This constitutes proxy betting[.] He took undue advantage of his position and
influence to circumvent the rules, for his personal benefit and profit.
Because he utilized a fraud to borrow funds from Pagcor to win against Pagcor, the
entire scheme was dishonest. By his acts, he manifested a desire for personal gain which
overrode his duty to protect the Corporation. This created a conflict of interest for which
he is
directly and personally responsible and liable. Finally, BM
SYHONGPAN prevaricated under [sic] investigation and before the Adjudication
Committee to conceal the truth.
It is also the opinion of the Adjudication Committee that the acts committed by BM
RICHARD SYHONGPAN violated the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Section 3
subparagraphs a, e, h and j thereof. Also, BM RICHARD SYHONGPAN violated the
Code of Ethical Conduct for Public Officers and Employees, particularly Section 7
thereof, subparagraphs (c) and (d).
For this, it is respectfully recommended that BM RICHARD SYHONGPAN
be dismissed from the service. This is without prejudice to the filing of the appropriate
charges against him before the Ombudsman.[18] (Emphasis and underscoring partly in
the original and partly supplied)

The Board of Directors, after considering the findings and recommendation of the
Adjudication Committee, resolved to dismiss from the service Syhongpan, together with
Gonzales.[19]
After they received notices of termination, Syhongpan and Gonzales appealed to the
Civil Service Commission (CSC).[20]
The CSC affirmed the decision of PAGCOR by CSC Resolution No. 981738 [21] of July
2, 1998, the dispositive portion of which reads.
WHEREFORE, the appeal of Richard Syhongpan and Carlos Gonzales is hereby
dismissed for lack of merit. Accordingly, the decision of the Board of Directors of the

Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation finding them guilty of Dishonesty,

Grave Misconduct, Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service for
which they are meted out the penalty of dismissal is hereby affirmed.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Ombudsman for appropriate
criminal action.[22]

Syhongpan and Gonzaless Motion for Reconsideration was denied by CSC Resolution
No. 990479[23] of February 17, 1999.
Only Syhongpan appealed to the Court of Appeals via Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
The appellate court reversed, as stated early on, the CSC Resolutions by Decision
of June 20, 2000,[24] the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, CSC Resolution Nos. 981738 dated July 2, 1998 and 990479
dated February 16, 1999 [sic] are hereby ANNULLED. Respondent PAGCOR is hereby
ordered to pay petitioner his backwages, bonuses, tips plus all the benefits and privileges
granted to a Branch Manager in petitioners work from December 5, 1997 up to his
actual reinstatement. Further, respondent PAGCOR is ordered to reinstate petitioner to
his former position without loss of rank and seniority rights.[25]

The appellate court held that Syhongpan could not be found guilty of grave misconduct
and dishonesty as, for such offenses to merit his dismissal from the service, they must
have a direct relation to, and be connected with, the performance of his official duties. It
noted that the incident did not occur in Syhongpans office in Davao, but in Manila; and
that there was nothing on record to support the finding that it was Syhongpan who was
responsible for the check accommodation given to a playing customer. Syhongpans
involvement, the appellate court concluded, was based on mere speculations and
conjectures.[26]
PAGCORs motion for reconsideration having been denied, [27] it filed the present
petition faulting the appellate court
I

. . . WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF

DISHONESTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND CONDUCT GROSSLY PREJUDICIAL
TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE.

II
. . . WHEN IT REVERSED AND NULLIFIED THE FINDING OF THE CSC
AFFIRMING THE FINDINGS OF THE PAGCOR BOARD DISMISSING THE
RESPONDENT FROM THE SERVICE BECAUSE OF DISHONESTY, GROSS
MISCONDUCT AND CONDUCT GROSSLY PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST
INTEREST OF THE SERVICE.
III
. . . WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE RESPONDENT A CONFIDENTIAL
EMPLOYEE WHOSE TERM HAD EXPIRED BY REASON OF LOSS OF
CONFIDENCE.[28]

The appeal is impressed with merit.

Dishonesty, to warrant dismissal, need not be committed in the performance of duty of
the employee charged. In Remolona v. Civil Service Commission,[29] the therein
petitioner, a Postmaster at the Postal Office Service in Infanta, Quezon, was dismissed
by the CSC for dishonesty acquiring fake eligibility for his wife who was an elementary
school teacher. Posed as main issue was whether a civil service employee can be
dismissed from the government service for an offense which is not work-related or
which is not connected with the performance of his official duty. This Court, upholding
the legality of the dismissal, held:
It cannot be denied that dishonesty is considered a grave offense punishable by
dismissal for the first offense under Section 23, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing
Book V of Executive Order No. 292. And the rule is that dishonesty, in order to
warrant dismissal, need not be committed in the course of the performance of duty
by the person charged. The rationale for the rule is that if a government officer or
employee is dishonest or is guilty of oppression or grave misconduct, even if said
defects of character are not connected with his office, they affect his right to
continue in office. The Government cannot tolerate in its service a dishonest official,
even if he performs his duties correctly and well, because by reason of his government
position, he is given more and ample opportunity to commit acts of dishonesty against
his fellow men, even against offices and entities of the government other than the office

where he is employed; and by reason of his office, he enjoys and possesses a certain
influence and power which renders the victims of his grave misconduct, oppression and
dishonesty less disposed and prepared to resist and to counteract his evil acts and
actuations. The private life of an employee cannot be segregated from his public
life. Dishonesty inevitably reflects on the fitness of the officer or employee to continue
in office and the discipline and morale of the service. (Emphasis supplied)

Syhongpan did indeed commit serious violations of casino rules and regulations and his
duties as Branch Manager of Casino Filipino-Davao. By his own admission, he formed a
corporation composed of persons who agreed to pool together their resources and play at
the gaming tables and share in the profits or losses, [30] thereby advancing his personal
interest over that of the corporation which he was duty bound to protect, being a high
officer of the corporation. Such admission, together with his other admissions detailed
above which are against his interest, clearly merit his dismissal.
As the CSC, which adopted the factual findings and recommendations of the CIU as
well as the Adjudication Committee of PAGCOR, aptly ruled:
As borne by the records of the case, Syhongpan circumvented casino regulations
prohibiting New PAGCOR officers from playing beyond 6:00 oclock of the following
morning, rules on maximum bets and rules prohibiting officers from playing at the big
tables by employing Corazon Castillo as his gunner[.] Gonzales, acting under the
direction and control by [sic] Syhongpan, approached various financiers whenever their
partnership needed additional capital, incurring a total indebtedness of P2.7 Million
pesos. When they could not borrow from the financiers, Syhongpan utilized the
character and reputation of a certain Quintin A. Llorente as an indorsee/guarantor to
present himself as the purported applicant for the accommodation. This was an act of
fraud, since the true applicant/owner of the checks was Corazon Castillo and not Quintin
Llorente. Syhongpan also took advantage of his position and influence as Branch
Manager of a PAGCOR casino. Likewise Gonzales took advantage of his position and
influence as Casino Operations Manager of Casino Filipino-Heritage to circumvent the
existing approval procedure for personal checks accommodations. This allowed the
partnership to borrow a total of P7 Million pesos from the Heritage Treasury.[31]

It is axiomatic that where the findings of the administrative body are amply supported by
substantial evidence, as they are in the present case, they are accorded not only respect
but also finality, and are binding on this Court.[32]

At all events, since Syhongpan is occupying a Branch Manager position of Casino

Filipino-Davao which is primarily confidential, his dismissal from the service by the
Board of Directors of PAGCOR under the circumstances is in order.
WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Decision of June 20, 2000 is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Civil Service Commission Resolution No.
981738 dated July 2, 1998 and No. 990479 dated February 17, 1999 are REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice

DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice

[1] Rollo, pp. 34-45.

[2] Id. at 34.

[3] Id. at 54.
[4] Records, pp. 203-204.
[5] Rollo, p. 55.
[6] Id. at 112-113. Vide also rollo, pp. 126-127.
[7] Id. at 55.
[8] Id. at 124 and 55.
[9] Id. at 124 and 55.
[10] Id. at 124-125.
[11] Id. at 125.
[12] Id. at 126 and 56.
[13] Id. at 56. Vide also the CIUs Investigation Report at 96-101.
[14] Id. at 55.
[15] Id. at 129.
[16] Id. at 56.
[17] Id. at 128.
[18] Id. at 137-138.
[19] Id. at 57.
[20] Id. at 16.
[21] Id. at 49-59.

[22] Id. at 59.

[23] Id. at 60-62.
[24] Id. at 34-45. Penned by Associate Justice Demetrio Demetria and concurred in by

Associate Justices Eubolo Verzola and Jose Sabio, Jr.

[25] Id. at 45.
[26] Id. at 38 and 44.
[27] Id. at 48.
[28] Rollo, p. 18.
[29] G.R. No. 137473, August 2, 2001, 362 SCRA 304, 313 citing Nera v. Garcia, et
al. 106 Phil. 1031, 1036 (1960); See also Alabastro v. Moncada, Sr., A.M No. P-041887, December 16, 2004, 447 SCRA 42, 59.
[30] Rollo, p. 124.
[31] Id. at 57-58.
[32] Tiatco v. Civil Service Commission, G. R. No. 100249, December 21, 1992, 216

SCRA 749, 754. Vide also Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Ltd. v. Court of
Appeals, 420 Phil. 10, 23-24 (2001); Santos v. Macaraig, G. R. No. 94070, April 10,
1992, 208 SCRA 74, 80.
MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 20
MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 20 - ENJOINING STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF P.D. NO. 1067-B
GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO THE PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION
(PAGCOR) TO ESTABLISH, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN GAMBLING CASINOS

WHEREAS, certain conditions are imposed on the franchise holder of gambling casinos;
WHEREAS, one of the conditions imposed is that only tourists and/or foreigners who are not residents of the
Philippines, and residents with a net income for the previous year of at least P50,000.00, which fact should
be certified by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, shall be allowed to play at the gambling casinos;
WHEREAS, the following persons are not allowed to play at the gambling casinos:
(a) Government officials connected directly with the operation of the government or any of
its agencies.
(b) Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, including the Army, Navy, Air Force or
Constabulary.
(c) Persons under 21 years of age or students of any school, college or university in the
Philippines.
WHEREAS, it has been reported that many government officials and even members of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines are seen at the casinos;
WHEREAS, there is need to enforce strictly the aforementioned conditions set by law.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is hereby directed:

1. All heads of ministries, bureaus and offices, government-owned or controlled
corporations and local governments, including the AFP, to reiterate the prohibition against
officials and employees under them from going to the casinos.
2. The PAGCOR Management to judiciously enforce the law on who should be allowed to
stay in the premises of the casinos.
3. The Chief of Constabulary, in coordination with PAGCOR Management, to implement the
provisions of this Circular.
This Memorandum Circular takes effect immediately.
Manila, October 8, 1986.

chan robles virtual law library

Back to Main

PRESIDENTIAL DECREES
CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
MALACAANG
Manila
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1602
PRESCRIBING STIFFER PENALTIES ON ILLEGAL GAMBLING
WHEREAS, Philippine Gambling Laws such as Articles 195-199 of the Revised Penal Code (Forms of Gambling
and Betting), R.A. 3063 (Horse racing Bookies), P.D. 449 (Cockfighting), P.D. 483 (Game Fixing), P.D. 510
(Slot Machines) in relation to Opinion Nos. 33 and 97 of the Ministry of Justice, P.D. 1306 (Jai-Alai Bookies)
and other City and Municipal Ordinances or gambling all over the country prescribe penalties which are
inadequate to discourage or stamp out this pernicious activities;
WHEREAS, there is now a need to increase their penalties to make them more effective in combating this
social menace which dissipate the energy and resources of our people;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the
powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree:
Section 1. Penalties. The following penalties are hereby imposed:
(a) The penalty of prison correccional in its medium period of a fine ranging from one thousand to six
thousand pesos, and in case of recidivism, the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period or a fine ranging
from five thousand to ten thousand pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person other than those referred to in the succeeding sub-sections who in
any manner, shall directly or indirectly take part in any illegal or unauthorized
activities or games of cockfighting, jueteng, jai alai or horse racing to include bookie
operations and game fixing, numbers, bingo and other forms of lotteries; cara y
cruz, pompiang and the like; 7-11 and any game using dice; black jack, lucky nine,
poker and its derivatives, monte, baccarat, cuajao, pangguingue and other card
games; paik que, high and low, mahjong, domino and other games using plastic
tiles and the likes; slot machines, roulette, pinball and other mechanical
contraptions and devices; dog racing, boat racing, car racing and other forms of
races, basketball, boxing, volleyball, bowling, pingpong and other forms of individual
or team contests to include game fixing, point shaving and other machinations;
banking or percentage game, or any other game scheme, whether upon chance or

skill, wherein wagers consisting of money, articles of value or representative of

value are at stake or made;
2. Any person who shall knowingly permit any form of gambling referred to in the
preceding subparagraph to be carried on in inhabited or uninhabited place or in any
building, vessel or other means of transportation owned or controlled by him. If the
place where gambling is carried on has a reputation of a gambling place or that
prohibited gambling is frequently carried on therein, or the place is a public or
government building or barangay hall, the malfactor shall be punished by prision
correccional in its maximum period and a fine of six thousand pesos.
(b) The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period or a fine of six thousand pesos
shall be imposed upon the maintainer or conductor of the above gambling schemes.
(c) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period with temporary absolute disqualification or
a fine of six thousand pesos shall be imposed if the maintainer, conductor or banker of said
gambling schemes is a government official, or where such government official is the player,
promoter, referee, umpire, judge or coach in case of game fixing, point shaving and
machination.
(d) The penalty of prision correccional in its medium period or a fine ranging from four hundred
to two thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall, knowingly and without
lawful purpose in any hour of any day, possess any lottery list, paper or other matter containing
letters, figures, signs or symbols pertaining to or in any manner used in the games of jueteng,
jai-alai or horse racing bookies, and similar games of lotteries and numbers which have taken
place or about to take place.
(e) The penalty of temporary absolute disqualifications shall be imposed upon any barangay
official who, with knowledge of the existence of a gambling house or place in his jurisdiction fails
to abate the same or take action in connection therewith.
(f) The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period or a fine ranging from five hundred
pesos to two thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any security officer, security guard,
watchman, private or house detective of hotels, villages, buildings, enclosures and the like which
have the reputation of a gambling place or where gambling activities are being held.
Sec. 2. Informer's reward. Any person who shall disclose information that will lead to the arrest and final
conviction of the malfactor shall be rewarded twenty percent of the cash money or articles of value
confiscated or forfeited in favor of the government.
Sec. 3. Repealing Clause. Provisions of Art. 195-199 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, Republic Act
No. 3063, Presidential Decrees Numbered 483, 449, 510 and 1306, letters of instructions, laws, executive
orders, rules and regulations, city and municipal ordinances which are inconsistent with this Decree are
hereby repealed.
Sec. 4. Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect immediately upon publication at least once in a newspaper of
general circulation.
Done in the City of Manila, this 11th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hu

MALACAANG
MANILA

MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 8

ENJOINING GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL AND ALL CONCERNED FROM
ENTERING OR PLAYING IN CASINOS
WHEREAS, Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1067-B, as last amended by PD No.
1869, granted the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) a

franchise to establish, operate and maintain gambling clubs and casinos;

WHEREAS, one of the conditions imposed on the franchise holder is that only
tourists and/or foreigners who are not residents of the Philippines, and residents
with a net income for the previous year of at least P50,000.00, which fact should
be certified to by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, shall be allowed to play at the
gambling casinos:
WHEREAS, the following persons are not allowed to stay and/or play at the
gambling casinos:
a)

Government officials connected directly with the operation of the

government or any of its agencies, save personnel employed by the casinos who
may be allowed to stay in the premises;
b)

Members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and Armed Forces of the

Philippines (AFP), including the Army, Navy, and Air Force; and
c)

Persons under 21 years of age or students of any school, college or

university in the Philippines.

WHEREAS, it has been reported that some government officials and employees,
including members of the PNP and AFP, have been seen in casinos;
WHEREAS, there is a need to enforce strictly the aforementioned conditions set
by law.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is hereby reiterated that all government
personnel concerned are prohibited from entering, staying and/or playing at
gambling casinos. Accordingly, it is hereby directed:
1.All heads of departments, bureaus and offices, government-owned or controlled
corporations and local governments, including the PNP and AFP, to remind officials
and employees under them regarding this prohibition and to impose the
appropriate sanctions and penalties in case of violation thereof; and

2.The PAGCOR Management to strictly enforce the law and this Memorandum
Circular as regards the prohibition to enter, stay and/or play in casinos.
This Memorandum Circular shall take effect immediately.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 28th day of August, 2001.
By authority of the President:
(SGD.) ALBERTO G. ROMULO

Executive Secretary

President Rodrigo Duterte has asked the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp (PAGCOR) to
strictly prohibit all government officials and employees from setting foot inside the casinos.
In a video released by RTVM on Saturday, President Duterte said he would direct PAGCOR chair
Andrea Domingo to extend the prohibition to government officials spouses.

I would like to ask PAGCOR to prohibit lahat ng taga-gobyerno, pati yung mga asawa to deny
them entrance sa mga casinos. I do not want people, lalo na sa gobyerno, pasok-pasok sa (casino),
he said.
President Duterte reiterated that government officials and employees are being paid to do their work,
adding that he would not hesitate to dismiss those who are not performing their duties.

We are paid by the people to work eight hours. Bayad tayo, the president said.

RECENTLY, I was asked by a colleague in the National Union of Career

Executive Service Officers the propriety of promoting a government
official who is engaged in gambling. We then engaged in a
hypothetical discussion as to whether a government official may
be held liable for doing a friendly P5,000 bet on the ending
numbers of the final score of a Talk N Text versus Rain or Shine
basketball championship game (or who will simply win in a boxing
match). How about merely playing tong-its or other card games
without a monetary bet in the office?
In all instances, the answer, I said, should be yes.
It must be emphasized that all individuals, whether government
officials or not, are prohibited by Philippine laws to engage in any
form of illegal gambling. The latest law related to illegal gambling is
Republic Act (RA) 9287, entitled An Act Increasing the Penalties for
Illegal Numbers Games, Amending Certain Provisions of Presidential
Decree (PD) No. 1602, and for Other Purposes. Thus, it is stated

under Section 1 of the law that, [It] is the policy of the state to
promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the
prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from
poverty through policies that provide adequate social services,
promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an
improved quality of life for all. It is, likewise, the policy of the state
that the promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to
create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and
self-reliance. It then proceeded by stating, The state hereby
condemns the existence of illegal gambling activities, such as illegal
numbers games, as this has become an influential factor in an
individuals disregard for the value of dignified work, perseverance
and thrift since instant monetary gains from it are being equated to
success, thereby becoming a widespread social menace and a
source of corruption.
PD 1602 enumerates the different Philippine gambling laws, such as
Articles 195 to 199 of the Revised Penal Code (Forms of Gambling
and Betting); RA 3063 (Horse Racing Bookies); PD 449 (Cockfighting);
PD 483 (Game Fixing); PD 510 (Slot Machines) in relation to Opinion
Nos. 33 and 97 of the Ministry of Justice; PD 1306 (Jai-Alai Bookies);
and other city and municipal ordinances for gambling all over the
country.

The liability, therefore, of a government official engaged in illegal

gambling is both criminal and administrative.
As to the criminal liability of a government official engaged in illegal
gambling, Section 3 of RA 9287 prescribes the penalty of
imprisonment from 30 days to 90 days, if such person acts as a
bettor. Section 5 imposes the stiffer penalty of 12 years and one day
to 20 years and a fine ranging from P3 million to P5 million and
perpetual absolute disqualification from public office for government
employees and public officials if such public official acts as collector,
agent, coordinator, controller, supervisor, maintainer, manager,
operator, financier or capitalist of any illegal-numbers game.

The Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service

(RRACCS) promulgated on November 8, 2011, classifies the act of
gambling prohibited by law as a light offense punishable by
reprimand for the first offense; suspension of one to 30 days for the
second offense; and dismissal from the service for the third offense.
While the RRACCS does not state whether such penalty applies only
if the public official is a bettor, it is submitted that a public official
who acts as a collector, agent, coordinator, controller, supervisor,
maintainer, manager, operator, financier or capitalist of any illegal
gambling should be held administratively liable for the grave offense
of grave misconduct and not simply the light offense of gambling
prohibited by law.
In light of the foregoing, the public official who engage in a friendly
P5,000 bet in any basketball game or boxing match may be held
criminally and administratively liable. So how about playing tongits or other card games without a monetary bet in office? While this
may not be considered as illegal gambling under existing penal
laws or gambling prohibited by law punishable as a light offense
under RRACCS, such government official should be held, at the very
least, for misconduct. Thus, in an administrative case filed against a
court employee merely playing cards in the judges chambers or in
his office, the disclaimer that money was not involved is declared to
be inconsequential. The Supreme Court in said case stated that [i]n
fact, their defense that they were simply having an innocuous card
game sans monetary bets does not excuse their misconduct. It then
quoted Albano-Madrid vApolonio (A.M. No. P1-1517, February 17,
2003) as follows: What is more alarming, in our view, is
respondents nonchalance concerning the effect of their misconduct.
They have the gall to split hairs and say that they were playing
cards, but not gambling. If loafing during office hours could not be
countenanced, the more reason playing cards could not be tolerated

in the judges chambers. Such act or conduct that violates the norm
of public accountability or diminishes the peoples faith in the
judiciary could never be tolerated or condoned.
While this case speaks about a court employee playing cards in the
judges chambers or in his office, playing tong-its or other card
games without a monetary bet in office should have the same effect
of violating the norm of public accountability expected from all
government officials and employees (or of diminishing the peoples
faith in the government service). Incidentally, may I reiterate to our
readers that Memorandum Circular 8, issued by Malacaang on
August 28, 2001, enjoins all government personnel from entering or
playing in casinos. This column should not be taken as a legal advice
applicable to any case as each case is unique and should be
construed in light of the attending circumstances surrounding such
particular case.

Lawyer Toni Umali is the current assistant secretary for Legal and
Legislative Affairs of the Department of Education. He is licensed to
practice law not only in the Philippines, but also in the state of
California and some federal courts in the US after passing the
California State Bar Examinations in 2004. He has served as a legal
consultant to several legislators and local chief executives. As
education assistant secretary, he was instrumental in the passage of
the K to 12 law and the issuance of its implementing rules and
regulations. He is also the alternate spokesman of the DepEd.