In the high-stakes world of Philippine gaming, disputes over unreturned funds—whether they involve frozen accounts, refused payouts of winnings, or unredeemed chips—are increasingly common. As the industry shifts toward integrated resorts and digital platforms, understanding the legal framework governing the liability of Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR)-accredited casinos is essential for both players and operators.

I. The Regulatory Framework: PAGCOR’s Dual Role

Under Presidential Decree No. 1869, as amended (the PAGCOR Charter), PAGCOR acts as both a regulator and an operator. For private entities (e.g., those in Entertainment City or offshore gaming licensees), PAGCOR issues the authority to operate and enforces strict compliance with the Gaming Licensing and Development Scheme (GLDS).

When a casino refuses to return funds, the dispute is primarily governed by:

The PAGCOR Regulatory Manuals: These contain specific provisions on "Player Protection" and "Dispute Resolution."
The Civil Code of the Philippines: Particularly provisions on Contracts and Quasi-delicts (Torts).
Consumer Act of the Philippines (R.A. 7394): Which protects consumers against unfair practices.

II. Common Grounds for Fund Retention

Casinos generally justify the withholding or non-refund of funds based on three legal pillars:

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Compliance: Under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), as amended by R.A. 10927 (which specifically included casinos), operators are required to freeze transactions that appear suspicious or involve "unverified" sources of funds.
Terms and Conditions (Contractual Defense): Upon entering a casino or registering for an online portal, a player enters into a contract. Casinos often cite "technical glitches," "software errors," or "syndicated play" as breaches of contract that nullify the obligation to pay.
Know Your Customer (KYC) Failures: If a player cannot provide satisfactory proof of identity, the casino is legally prohibited from releasing significant sums.

III. The Legal Liability of the Casino

A PAGCOR-accredited casino is not shielded from liability simply because it is regulated. Its liability generally falls into two categories:

A. Breach of Contract

The relationship between a player and a casino is contractual. When a player deposits money or wins a bet, the casino becomes a debtor to the player. A refusal to return funds without a valid legal cause (e.g., evidence of fraud) constitutes a breach.

Key Note: The burden of proof often shifts to the casino to prove that a "technical error" or "fraud" actually occurred. Mere allegations are insufficient to withhold a player's vested property.

B. Solutio Indebiti and Unjust Enrichment

Under Article 2154 of the Civil Code, if a casino retains funds that it has no right to keep (such as a deposit where no gambling took place, or winnings from a fair game), it may be liable for Unjust Enrichment. The principle dictates that no person shall unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another.

IV. The Dispute Resolution Process

Players seeking a refund cannot immediately rush to court. PAGCOR requires the exhaustion of administrative remedies:

Internal Casino Escalation: The player must first file a formal protest with the casino’s management.
PAGCOR Mediation: If unresolved, the player files a complaint with the PAGCOR Monitoring Teams or the Gaming Licensing and Development Department (GLDD).
Regulatory Adjudication: PAGCOR will review CCTV footage, system logs, and dealer reports. Their decision is generally binding on the licensee but can be appealed to the Office of the President or the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review.

V. Critical Defenses for Players

To succeed in a refund dispute, players typically rely on:

The Adhesion Contract Rule: Since casino terms are "take-it-or-leave-it," any ambiguity in the rules regarding refunds is usually interpreted against the casino and in favor of the player.
Due Process: A casino cannot unilaterally "confiscate" funds without giving the player a chance to explain or rectify KYC issues.
Evidence of Deposit: Maintaining digital receipts, screenshots of balances, and physical chips is vital.

VI. Conclusion

Liability for unreturned funds in PAGCOR-accredited casinos hinges on the balance between strict AML/Regulatory compliance and the fundamental civil rights of the player. While casinos have a duty to prevent financial crimes, they cannot use regulation as a cloak to withhold legitimate winnings or deposits.

Would you like me to draft a formal demand letter template or a guide on the specific steps to file a complaint with PAGCOR?