Case Digest for Caltex vs Palomar 18 SCRA 247

BY IAMFREAKGEEK ON JUNE 16, 2013

G.R. No. L-19650

Caltex Philippines, Inc., petitioner-appellee

Vs.

Enrico Palomar, in his capacity as The Postmaster General, respondent-appellant

Click Here for the Full Text of the case

FACTS:

In the year 1960, Caltex Philippines conceived and laid the ground work for a promotional
scheme calculated to drum up patronage for its oil products. The contest was entitled “Caltex Hooded
Pump Contest”, which calls for participants to estimate the actual number of liters as hooded gas
pump at each Caltex station will dispense during a specific period.

Foreseeing the extensive use of the mails not only as amongst the media for publicizing the
contest but also for the transmission of communications, representations were made by Caltex with
the postal authorities for the contest to be cleared in advance for mailing. This was formalized in a
letter sent by Caltex to the Post master General, dated October 31, 1960, in which Caltex, thru its
counsel, enclosed a copy of the contest rules and endeavored to justify its position that the contest
does not violate the “The Anti-Lottery Provisions of the Postal Law”.

Unfortunately, the Palomar, the acting Postmaster General denied Caltex’s request stating that
the contest scheme falls within the purview of the Anti-lottery Provision and ultimately, declined
Clatex’s request for clearance.

Caltex sought reconsideration, stressing that there being no consideration involved in part of
the contestant, the contest was not commendable as a lottery. However, the Postmaster General
maintained his view that the contest involves consideration, or even it does not involve any
consideration it still falls as “Gift Enterprise”, which was equally banned by the Postal Law.

ISSUE:

1. Whether the petition states a sufficient cause of action for declaratory relief?
2. Whether or not the scheme proposed by Caltex the appellee is within the coverage of the
prohibitive provisions of the Postal Law?

HELD:

I.

By express mandate of Section 1 of Rule 66 of the old Rules of Court which deals with the
applicability to invoke declaratory relief which states: “Declaratory relief is available to person whose
rights are affected by a statute, to determine any question of construction or validity arising under the
statute and for a declaration of rights thereunder.
In amplification, conformably established jurisprudence on the matter, laid down certain conditions:

1. There must be a justiciable controversy.

2. The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse.
3. The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy.
4. The issue involved must be ripe for judicial determination.

With the appellee’s bent to hold the contest and the appellant’s threat to issue a fraud order if carried
out, the contenders are confronted by an ominous shadow of imminent and inevitable litigation unless
their differences are settled and stabilized by a declaration. And, contrary to the insinuation of the
appellant, the time is long past when it can rightly be said that merely the appellee’s “desires are
thwarted by its own doubts, or by the fears of others” — which admittedly does not confer a cause of
action. Doubt, if any there was, has ripened into a justiciable controversy when, as in the case at bar,
it was translated into a positive claim of right which is actually contested.

Construction

– Is the art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning and intention of the authors of
the law with respect to its application to a given case, where that intention is rendered doubtful,
amongst others, by reason of the fact that the given case is not explicitly provided for in the law.

It is not amiss to point out at this juncture that the conclusion we have herein just reached is not without
precedent. In Liberty Calendar Co. vs. Cohen, 19 N.J., 399, 117 A. 2d., 487, where a corporation
engaged in promotional advertising was advised by the county prosecutor that its proposed sales
promotion plan had the characteristics of a lottery, and that if such sales promotion were conducted,
the corporation would be subject to criminal prosecution, it was held that the corporation was entitled
to maintain a declaratory relief action against the county prosecutor to determine the legality of its
sales promotion plan.

II.

Is the Contest Scheme a Lottery?

Lottery

– Extends to all schemes for the distribution of prizes by chance

e.g. policy playing, gift exhibitions, prize concerts, raffles and fairs as well as various forms of
gambling.

Three Essential Elements:

1. Consideration
2. Prize
3. 3. Chance

No, according to the Supreme Court, the contest scheme is not a lottery but it appears to be
more of a gratuitous distribution since nowhere in the rules is any requirements that any fee be paid,
any merchandise be bought, any services be rendered, or any value whatsoever be given for the
privilege to participate. Since, a prospective contestant has to do is go to a Caltex Station, request for
the entry form which is available on demand and accomplish and submit the same for the drawing of
the winner. Because of this, the contest fails to exhibit any discernible consideration which would brand
it as a lottery.

Moreover, the law does not condemn the gratuitous distribution of property by chance, if no
consideration is derived directly or indirectly from the party receiving the chance, but it does condemn
as criminal scheme in which a valuable consideration of some kind is paid directly or indirectly for the
chance to draw a prize.

Is the scheme, as sales promotion which would benefit the sponsor in the way of increased
patronage be considered as a consideration and thus violates the Postal Law?

No, the required element of consideration does not consist of the benefit derived by the
sponsors of the contest. The true test lies on whether or not the participant pays a valuable
consideration for the chance of winning and not whether or not those conducting the enterprise
receiver something of value for the distribution of the prize.

Is the Contest Scheme a Gift Enterprise?

Even if the term Gift Enterprise is not yet defined explicitly, there appears to be a consensus
among lexicographers and standard authorities that the term is common applied to a sporting artifice
of under which goods are sold for their market value but by way of inducement to purchase the product,
the purchaser is given a chance to win a prize.

And thus, the term of gift enterprise cannot be established in the case at bar since there is
not sale of anything to which the chance offered is attached as an inducement to the purchaser. The
contest is open to all qualified contestant irrespective of whether or not they buy the appellee’s
products.

The lesson that we derive from this state of the pertinent jurisprudence is that every case must be
resolved upon the particular phraseology of the applicable statutory provision. It is only logical
that the term under a construction should be accorded no other meaning than that which is
consistent with the nature of the word associated therewith.

In the end, the Supreme Court ruled out that under the prohibitive provision of the Postal Law, gift
enterprise and similar schemes therein contemplated are condemnable only if, like lotteries, they
involve the element of consideration. Finding non in the contest, it was ruled out that the appellee
may not be denied the use of the mails for the purpose thereof.