YUN KWAN BYUNG vs. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION

G.R. No. 163553           December 11, 2009

FACTS

PAGCOR launched its Foreign Highroller Marketing Program. The Program aims to invite patrons from foreign countries to play at the dollar pit of designated PAGCOR-operated casinos under specified terms and conditions and in accordance with industry practice. Petitioner, a Korean national, alleges that he came to the Philippines four times to play for high stakes at the Casino Filipino; that in the course of the games, he was able to accumulate gambling chips worth US$2.1 million. Petitioner contends that when he presented the gambling chips for encashment with PAGCORs employees or agents, PAGCOR refused to redeem them.

PAGCOR claims that petitioner, who was brought into the Philippines by ABS Corporation, is a junket player who played in the dollar pit exclusively leased by ABS Corporation for its junket players. PAGCOR alleges that it provided ABS Corporation with distinct junket chips. ABS Corporation distributed these chips to its junket players. At the end of each playing period, the junket players would surrender the chips to ABS Corporation. Only ABS Corporation would make an accounting of these chips to PAGCORs casino treasury.

ISSUE

Whether the CA erred in holding that PAGCOR is not liable to petitioner, disregarding the doctrine of implied agency, or agency by estoppels

RULING

Petitioner alleges that there is an implied agency. Alternatively, petitioner claims that even assuming that no actual agency existed between PAGCOR and ABS Corporation, there is still an agency by estoppel based on the acts and conduct of PAGCOR showing apparent authority in favor of ABS Corporation. Petitioners argument is clearly misplaced. The basis for agency is representation, that is, the agent acts for and on behalf of the principal on matters within the scope of his authority and said acts have the same legal effect as if they were personally executed by the principal. On the part of the principal, there must be an actual intention to appoint or an intention naturally inferable from his words or actions, while on the part of the agent, there must be an intention to accept the appointment and act on it. Absent such mutual intent, there is generally no agency.

There is no implied agency in this case because PAGCOR did not hold out to the public as the principal of ABS Corporation. PAGCORs actions did not mislead the public into believing that an agency can be implied from the arrangement with the junket operators, nor did it hold out ABS Corporation with any apparent authority to represent it in any capacity. The Junket Agreement was merely a contract of lease of facilities and services.