1) Why this issue matters

A raffle is built on a public promise: join under stated mechanics and someone will receive the stated prize. When the organizer fails to deliver the promised prize—whether by refusal, delay, substitution without basis, “vanishing” after the draw, or running an unpermitted raffle—the legal exposure in the Philippines can be multi-layered:

Civil liability (to compel delivery of the prize and/or pay damages)
Administrative liability (especially where the raffle is treated as a regulated sales promotion or charitable draw)
Criminal liability (where the facts show fraud/deceit, or where the activity is treated as illegal gambling)

The organizer’s risk increases sharply when there is evidence of bad faith, misrepresentation, permit non-compliance, lack of prize inventory, or a pattern of similar complaints.

2) What counts as a “raffle” in practice (Philippine context)

In everyday Philippine usage, “raffle” covers several variants:

Promotional raffle / sales promotion A business uses a draw to promote sales/brand awareness (e.g., “Buy ₱500 and get a raffle entry to win a car.”). These are typically regulated as sales promotions.
Charity raffle / fundraising draw An organization solicits the public to buy tickets to raise funds and offers prizes. These often fall under stricter regulatory expectations and may require specific government authorization depending on structure.
Private or internal raffle Within a closed group (employees, members), sometimes informal—still potentially enforceable civilly if there’s a clear promise, but regulatory and criminal issues depend on the facts (public solicitation, consideration, chance, etc.).
Online/social-media raffle Common now: “comment/share/tag to win.” These can still generate liabilities if there’s a clear public promise and people relied on it, even if entry is “free.”

Key legal insight: labels don’t control. Authorities and courts look at the mechanics—who was solicited, what was promised, what participants had to do/give, and whether chance determines the winner.

3) Regulatory backdrop (what government oversight generally targets)

Raffles that solicit the public or function as promotions are usually treated as regulated activities. While the exact permitting path depends on the type of raffle (promotion vs. charity; nationwide vs. local; online vs. physical), the recurring compliance themes are:

Truthful disclosure of mechanics: eligibility, entry method, draw date/time, selection method, claiming process, and deadlines
Prize integrity: the organizer must actually have the prize, or have secured the capacity to deliver it
Non-deceptive advertising: all promotional materials must match the approved mechanics (where approval is required)
Recordkeeping: participant lists, draw results, and winner notifications
Consumer protection: no misleading claims, hidden conditions, or bait-and-switch
Post-draw duties: announcement, validation, and prize turnover within specified periods

Failure to award prizes is often treated not as a mere “customer service lapse,” but as a core compliance breach because the prize is the center of the promotion/raffle.

4) The legal relationships created by a raffle

A. Civil law: raffle as an enforceable obligation

Under the Civil Code principles on obligations and contracts, a raffle organizer that publicly announces mechanics and prizes can create enforceable obligations once participants comply with the requirements.

Common civil theories include:

Breach of contract / breach of obligation The public announcement + mechanics can function as an offer to the public, accepted by participation according to the rules. If the participant (or declared winner) complied, the organizer must perform.
Specific performance The winner can demand delivery of the promised prize (especially if it’s unique or specifically identified, like a particular vehicle, property, or item).
Damages If delivery is refused or delayed in bad faith, the winner may claim:
- Actual damages (e.g., documented expenses incurred to claim the prize, travel, documentation costs)
- Moral damages (possible where bad faith, fraud, or oppressive conduct is shown)
- Exemplary damages (possible when the act is wanton, fraudulent, reckless, or malevolent)
- Attorney’s fees (only when justified under law and proven)
Human relations provisions (bad faith / abuse of rights) Even where the organizer tries to hide behind technicalities, the Civil Code’s human relations provisions can support damages where there is willful injury, abuse, or conduct contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy.
Unjust enrichment If the raffle generated money or benefits for the organizer (ticket sales, increased purchases, monetized engagement) and the organizer refuses to pay out, a court may view the retention of benefits without fulfilling the promised prize as inequitable—supporting restitution-type remedies alongside other claims.

B. Consumer protection: misleading promotions and deceptive practices

Where the raffle is part of trade/commerce, failure to award promised prizes often overlaps with consumer protection rules against deceptive, unfair, or misleading sales promotions. Typical red flags:

Advertising a prize the organizer never had
“Hidden” disqualifications not clearly disclosed
Changing mechanics after participants joined
Substituting a materially inferior prize without clear legal basis and participant consent
Making the claiming process unreasonably burdensome to discourage winners (“constructive denial”)

Consumer-facing enforcement may include orders to comply, fines, and permit sanctions (suspension/cancellation) depending on the regulator and the type of raffle.

5) Criminal exposure: when failure to award becomes a crime

Not every failure to deliver a prize is criminal; some are civil/administrative. Criminal liability becomes realistic when the facts show deceit, fraudulent intent, or operation of an illegal gambling scheme.

A. Estafa (swindling) risk (Revised Penal Code concept)

An organizer can face estafa exposure when participants were induced by false pretenses or fraudulent acts—e.g.:

The organizer represented that a prize exists or will be awarded, knowing it will not
The organizer staged a “draw” but never intended to release prizes
The organizer collected ticket money or required purchases specifically tied to raffle entry, then absconded
The organizer used fabricated winners, manipulated draws, or invented disqualifications to avoid paying

Practical point: Proof of intent to defraud is the pivot. Evidence such as repetitive non-awarding, deleted pages after draw, fake contact details, or contradictory public statements may support criminal complaints.

B. Illegal gambling / unlawful games of chance concerns

If the raffle’s structure meets the classic gambling elements—prize, chance, and consideration (something of value paid or given)—and it is conducted without lawful authority, the organizer may face prosecution under laws penalizing illegal gambling. This is especially sensitive for public, ticketed raffles or “pay-to-join” draws without proper authorization.

C. Other possible criminal angles (fact-dependent)

Depending on conduct and documentation:

Falsification (fake receipts/tickets/IDs or altered draw records)
Cyber-related offenses (if online deception involves identity misuse, fraudulent online collection, or other acts covered by special penal laws)
Syndicated activity (if multiple offenders act as a group and the facts fit special penal provisions)

Criminal charging decisions are highly fact-specific and hinge on evidence quality.

6) Who can be liable: individuals, corporations, and “fronts”

A. If the organizer is a corporation

A corporation can be civilly liable. For criminal cases, liability commonly attaches to the responsible officers who authorized, managed, or executed the scheme (e.g., owners, directors, managers) when evidence shows personal participation or approval.

B. If the organizer is an unregistered group or individual

Liability is direct and personal. Victims often pursue both civil and criminal routes because there may be no stable entity to enforce against.

C. Endorsers, influencers, and partner merchants

Endorsers are not automatically liable merely for sharing. However, liability risk increases when they:

Represent themselves as organizers or guarantors of prizes
Receive ticket proceeds or control mechanics
Know of the deception and continue promoting
Participate in winner selection or disqualification decisions

7) Common “failure to award” patterns and how the law typically views them

1) Outright refusal to deliver the prize

Highest exposure. Civil liability is straightforward; administrative and criminal exposure depends on facts (especially misrepresentation and intent).

2) Deliberate delay / endless “processing”

Delay can be treated as non-performance, particularly when deadlines were advertised or required by regulators. Prolonged delay plus evasiveness often supports bad faith.

3) Substitution of prize

Substitution is risky unless:

The rules clearly allow substitution,
The substitution is genuinely equivalent,
The winner consents (or the substitution clause is enforceable and not abusive),
The substitution is not used as a bait-and-switch.

If the advertised prize drove participation, “downgrading” may be treated as deceptive.

4) Winner disqualification based on undisclosed grounds

If disqualification criteria were not clearly disclosed from the start, disqualification can be attacked as unfair/deceptive and may be void against the winner.

5) “No winner” claims

If a raffle advertises guaranteed prizes but later claims “no winner” due to technicalities, scrutiny is high. Regulators and courts typically disfavor mechanics engineered to avoid payout.

6) Organizer claims the prize was stolen, lost, or unavailable

This defense rarely succeeds if the organizer assumed responsibility to have the prize available. Force majeure defenses are narrow and generally require proof that the event was unforeseeable, unavoidable, and truly prevented performance—not merely made it inconvenient or expensive.

8) Civil remedies in detail (what a winner can claim)

A. Specific performance (delivery of the prize)

Courts can order the organizer to deliver the prize as promised. If the prize is no longer available due to the organizer’s fault, the winner can seek the value of the prize plus damages.

B. Damages

Actual/compensatory: documented financial losses directly caused by breach
Moral: when the organizer acted in bad faith or in a manner causing mental anguish, humiliation, or serious anxiety (not automatic; must be justified)
Exemplary: when the breach is accompanied by wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive conduct
Attorney’s fees: not automatic; must be legally justified and reasonable

C. Interest and value assessments

If the remedy becomes payment equivalent (because the prize cannot be delivered), valuation disputes arise:

The advertised prize value, market value at relevant time, and supporting evidence (ads, quotations, invoices) matter.
Courts may also consider whether the prize was brand-new or conditional.

9) Administrative remedies (regulatory complaint pathways)

For promotions and consumer-facing raffles, the winner (and sometimes any participant) can pursue administrative complaints. Administrative processes commonly aim to:

Compel prize delivery
Penalize deceptive advertising
Sanction permit violations
Prevent repeat offenses (e.g., permit denials, suspensions)

Administrative complaints can be powerful because regulators can move faster than courts and can impose compliance requirements and sanctions affecting ongoing business operations.

10) Evidence that typically decides these disputes

In both civil and administrative (and often criminal) proceedings, outcomes hinge on documentation:

Promotional materials Posters, screenshots, pages, broadcasts, influencer posts, mechanics, prize descriptions, and dates.
Mechanics / terms and conditions Especially the version available at the time of participation. Archived screenshots matter.
Proof of participation and eligibility Tickets, receipts, order confirmations, entry forms, timestamps, messages.
Proof of winning Official draw results, livestream recordings, announcement posts, direct notices.
Communication trail Messages showing evasiveness, shifting explanations, or refusal.
Proof of prize existence or non-existence Inventory documents, supplier quotes, admissions, third-party confirmations.
Pattern evidence Multiple complainants, repeated failures, prior similar raffles, complaints on record.

11) Defenses organizers commonly raise (and their typical weaknesses)

A. “The participant violated the rules”

This can succeed only if the rule:

Was clearly disclosed,
Is reasonable and non-abusive,
Was applied consistently,
Is supported by evidence.

B. “The raffle was just for fun / no obligation”

Publicized raffles with clear prizes and mechanics generally create obligations once conditions are met. The “for fun” framing is weak when the organizer benefited (money, sales, traffic).

C. “We can substitute prizes at our discretion”

Overbroad substitution clauses can be attacked as unfair, deceptive, or contrary to public policy—especially if the substitute is inferior or the clause was not prominently disclosed.

D. “Force majeure”

Rarely applicable. The organizer must show the event truly prevented delivery and was beyond control, and that they acted in good faith to mitigate.

E. “We already gave the prize to someone else / winner didn’t claim”

This depends on strict compliance with notice and claiming rules. If the organizer’s notice process was defective or unreasonable, the defense weakens.

12) Special complications: online raffles and cross-border elements

A. Online identity and verification issues

Organizers often require identity validation to prevent fraud. This is legitimate, but it must be:

Clearly explained in the mechanics,
Proportionate (not oppressive),
Compliant with data privacy requirements (collect only what is necessary; secure it).

B. Cross-border prizes and shipping

If a prize requires importation, taxes, or shipping costs, the mechanics must disclose who bears which costs. Ambiguity tends to be construed against the organizer who drafted the terms.

13) Practical compliance expectations (how to reduce liability risk)

Organizers who want to avoid “failure to award” exposure typically implement the following controls:

Secure the prize before launch Have the item on hand or a binding procurement arrangement.
Write mechanics that are clear, fair, and consistent with advertising Avoid hidden conditions. Make disqualification grounds explicit and reasonable.
Use auditable draw procedures Document the draw, keep records, and preserve raw participant lists (with appropriate privacy safeguards).
Set a realistic prize turnover timeline and follow it Delays create suspicion and legal risk.
Avoid discretionary substitutions If substitution is unavoidable, limit it to truly equivalent alternatives and define the circumstances narrowly.
Keep a complaint-handling channel and escalation path Many disputes escalate into formal cases because organizers ignore claimants.

14) Bottom line

In the Philippines, failure to award promised raffle prizes is not merely a reputational issue—it can trigger civil enforcement (delivery/value plus damages), administrative sanctions for deceptive or non-compliant promotions, and criminal exposure where fraud, deceit, or illegal gambling elements are present. The organizer’s liability turns largely on what was promised, what participants did to qualify, what the organizer did after the draw, and whether the non-award reflects bad faith or an inherently unlawful scheme.