PCSO, tech startup to enter arbitration over Peryahan

MANILA, Philippines — The Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) will bow to the Court of Appeals (CA) and go into arbitration with gaming tech startup Globaltech Mobile Online Corp., operator of the Peryahan ng Bayan (PNB) games.?

In a manifestation submitted to the CA, the PCSO, represented by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), signified its intent not to file any motion for reconsideration on the court’s ruling dated Jan. 15, 2019 that allowed Globaltech’s PNB games to continue.

“The PCSO, et al, respectfully manifest that they are no longer filing a motion for reconsideration and intend to immediately comply with the Honorable Court’s directive for the parties to go to arbitration,” said the four-page manifestation of the OGCC.?

However, the PCSO said it will raise questions with the arbitration tribunal, especially on the matter of the extension of deed of authority (DOA) it issued to Globaltech for the operation of PNB.

“PCSO will then seek the intervention of the Arbitral Tribunal’s authority to revoke, amend, modify or revise the Court’s previously issued interim measure of protection, as specifically provided under Rule 5.13 of A.M. No. 07-11-08-SC or the Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute Resolution,” the OGCC said.?

In a 24-page decision promulgated on Jan. 15, the CA’s Eighth Division upheld the status quo ante order issued by Pasig City Regional Trial Court Branch 161 in May 2016 that allowed PNB operations to proceed pending resolution of the dispute involving termination of Globaltech’s permit by the PCSO.

The ruling, penned by Associate Justice Ramon Cruz, dismissed the petition filed by PCSO questioning the status quo ante order and ruled that the RTC was correct in issuing the order that directed the gaming regulator “to continue sending a PCSO representative daily to the draw centers of Globaltech for the conduct of the Peryahan Games.”?

The CA said the PCSO “must comply with certain requirements under the contract and should not result in undue deprivation of property without due process or in wanton disregard of the provisions of the contract between the parties.”?

It added that the regulator has no “blanket authority to unilaterally terminate the contract without warning and in violation of the provisions thereof.”